1. @SarangHae3
    opininons are opinions, but you can’t say serve and volley is boring! today players are basically the same: it could be possible to re-draw the tennis courts using only baselines!

  2. As much as I loved Rafter, his serve and volley game was boring to watch! NO rallies whatsoever, he always wanted the point over with as soon as possible, he would often approach the net in the most inoportune time. How he won the US Open in ’97 and ’98, I don’t know. Most time, Rafter’s game can’t overcome aggresive baseliners like Kafelnikov, Agassi, et al., because of his high percentage of being at the net!

  3. Thanks for the correct comment on Kafelnikov. He had the shots to be #1, I believe he got up to #2 (like you said he played more tourneys than anyone in 99-2000. But he wasnt the most mentally strong, except when he won the french open he was awesome. But that was on clay, lol. Sometimes he would be a real headcase and crack, and then tank the match. lol. Anyways, my backhand is much better by imitating his straight arm, lock wrist , drive.

  4. because he played a lot of doubles as well (didn’t he win the French Open in 1996 in singles as well as doubles, alongside Daniel Vacek?) he was a briliant at serve&volley, as well as at the net in general. Actually Pete Sampras himself called him the most complete player at the time (to which a reporter answered “shame about the temperament”, or something to that effect).

  5. Actually, Kafelnikov was one of the most inconsistent and moody players ever, but when he was good, he was brilliant. (He was also called “marathon man”, because he played the most tournaments during the year (well, at least once Thomas Muster was out of the picture)) He was considered one of the best returners (along with Andre Agassi), he got the nickname “Kalashnikov” because of his excellent serves and winners, he was an excellent baseliner and at the same time,

  6. I’m sorry but you seem to be wrong here. He attacked the net simply awesome. He was indeed an excellent doubles player aswell. Attacking tennis can not be as boring as reading your letter.

  7. hahaha, now that the courts are slower, playing a style like rafter would be suicide wouldnt it? you serve and volley, and the opponent keeps hitting back, that is not a style of play made for long rallies. if you insist, fine, rafter “can” beat any player when hes at his beat, but his style of player tends to have a greater fluctuation between playing good and bad. so if you take the average in, you get 2 slams of US open in 1997 and 1998 which is quite comparable to the 2 slams of kafelnikov

  8. rafter at his best would defeat kafelnikov on every ground except clay, no matter how good kafelnikov plays. but i agree that rafter wasn’t a consistent player. he had also a lot of injuries. so he often underprformed, while kafelnikov always played good. but now the tour is full with kafelnikovs, but there is no player like rafter now. and that sucks.

  9. i’m sorry, i didnt watch that tennis back then, thats like 1999… i only started watching 3 years ago, the only reason i’m even starting this convo is because i think its rather unfair that you’re just dissing kafelnikov because he beat rafter on a seemingly “bad day” to you. to me, it just looks like rafter played a rather flamboyants tyle of serve and volley while kafelnikov sacrificed style for consistency… and serve-and-volleyers tend to win more fans

  10. but he did play the lower ranked players that beat those “class” players, or the player that beat the players that beat the “class” players… then that wouldnt make them very “classy” at all, would it?

  11. well remember kafelnikov’s australian open win. he didn’t play any real class player in the whole tournament. only his french open win was impressive.

  12. and who are we judge if a player is playing his best? when he wins? now that doesnt seem very fair to the opponent isnt? he wins becuz he’s playing good, he loses because he had a bad day, now where is the opponent gonna get any credit for anything? kafelnikov has a winning record of 3 to 2 against rafter, you cant say that 3 times out of 5 rafter will have a bad day, can you? and where is the consideration that kafelnikov may perhaps have a “bad day” too?

  13. and thats still not a fair comparism, the kind of game rafter plays is itself a percentage play, serve and volley is a game that either you make the volley and win or miss and get passed. while kafelnikov perfers to outlast by consistency. so i dun think its fair to take in account of just the winners and not the unforced errors, because with winners come errors. kafelnikov may not have the prettiest style, but it worked and at least got him 2 slams and a place as #1.

  14. my point was that if both would play their absolutely best tennis, rafter would win on any ground except clay. kafelnikov was a very very constant player, he never played bad. but i saw him play against sampras, agassi, becker and even ivanisevic. and if these guys had a good day, kafelnikov always lost, no matter if he played his best or not. exceptions are the games on clay. and he was boring as fuck, both his gamestyle and personality.

  15. you know what i think? i think anyone at his best could top anyone. but the trouble is in sports that its not always that a player can stay in his fittest form, even jordan had to add in the fade away when his age started to catch up with him. but thats sports, a player is only as good as his consistency. world number 1 is determined by 52 weeks of performance, not just 1 day in the final. in that sense, at least in this match, kafelnikov was the better player

  16. All you see now is baseline rallies on all surfaces. The game has slowed all surfaces and they got what they deserved. Not too exciting anymore.