Marat Safin - Genius Truly Touched By Madness

Aristotle once said that no great genius has ever existed without some touch of madness.

Step forward Marat Safin.

Quite the enigmatic tennis player I think I have seen since the great Nastase. Safin had a cracking serve and hell of a backhand. Winner of 2 Slam titles and the only player to have defeated Federer and Sampras at Grand Slams. Quite the achievement to beat the highly regarded 1 and 2 GOAT's. The man can somewhat be seen as an under-achiever. Maybe should've won more than 2 Grand Slams. Coming through an era with Federer, Roddick, Hewitt. Whilst one of them 4 went on to utter greatness in the game, physically the other 2 came away at the seams and Safin was just....well he was just Safin. Unpredictable and also unplayable when he wanted. There is the memorable French Open encounter where he was playing Felix Mantilla, played a lovely drop shot and then played another drop....He dropped his shorts! He was however he was penalized a point for the act, funnily enough he was fined for smashing his racquet in the same match, but not for his mooning act though. He holds the record for the most smashed racquets in a season with 87 which is more than a club full of players over a lifetime!! He later recounted last year that in his career he smashed 1055 racquets!! He must've had a patient sponsor as I know I have only ever smashed 5 racquets and it cost me an arm and leg to replace them! That story reminds me of the tale of one Goran Ivanisevic who playing in a exhibition in Brighton 2000. Me and my friend went to see it and Goran in his match with Hyung Taik Lee and he retired because he smashed every single racquet he had. 8 in total. He walked off court and despite being booed, I was in fits of laughter.

Back to Safin. I wish tennis had more players like him. I know he could be the most frustrating player to watch given in his last 12 Grand Slam appearances he made on semi final and was normally put out in the early rounds. While in today's tennis there isn't really 'bad' guys, I just wish there were more who were 'visibly' passionate. I know we get the occasional 'come on' by Federer, Nadal with the fist pumps and Toni's 'Vamos' Djokovic with his chest pounding and Murray with his come on. I do still think the game lacks the player who can show up and just produce a spell of great tennis or some which don't even make the club tennis level. There is the talent which de-throned Sampras and Federer in matches and then the one who lost to Thomas Johansson! I like un-predictablility and wish the game had more of it.

If passion means smashing up > 1000 rackets then less passion please.

Yes an under achiever perhaps but there are very few players that wouldn't have settled for a 2 slam career as a junior. I think he did quite well.

I suspected he enjoyed life off the court as well, fair play to him.

I did an article on this on 606. I can't google find the article so had to copy and paste.

Poor Safin
Othertype
by Henman Bill (U13808792) 03 September 2009

The articles on here this week are so bad that I´ve been driven to actually write one of my own.

A tribute to Safin, the man who beat Sampras to win one slam and Federer to win another.

But poor Safin, he has underachieved so much.

Imagine if you´d gone up to him as a young teenager trying to make it professional and told him:

"You will twice win the Davis cup. You will play a player consider the greatest of all time who has just won 13 slams and you will bash him in straight sets in a slam final. A few years later an even better player will come along who you will also beat on the way to winning a grand slam. Thousands of women will idly fantasise about your physique, you will be a millionaire and have a whale of a time".

Do you honestly think he would have turned around and said: "no, that doesn´t sound very good, I want more than that."

I wish I had underacheived that much as a tennis player. Yes he could have been more but come on, real underachievers like Gasquet would kill for a career like that. 99.9% of tennis players would have been very happy with his career. Some potentially great tennis players are born into a third world slum and never see a racket.

So discuss: Did Safin underachieve? With the same will and attitude as Federer and Nadal how many slams would he have won? Is winning 15 slams rather than just a couple more important than whether you´re simply a slam champion or not?
These 11 comments are related to an article called:
Poor Safin
Page 1 of 1
First post | Previous
1
Next | Latest post
comment by feisty (U12606032)
posted Sep 3, 2009
Did Safin underachieve. In relation to his potential and talent, then yes. But people have to remember the injuries that kept him out of the game, and also the fact that he deservedly enjoyed life away from his day job.

But do you think this time next year he will look back thinking, 'I should have won this or that'?

I think this time next year he will have his feet up on a beach somewhere thinking, 'im glad I achieved so much, now im reaping the rewards'
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by Theslamlesswonder (U14108715)
posted Sep 3, 2009
Did Safin underachieve?

No, he did not underachieve. Not by the measure which counts, that is, not by what he himself wanted. He says he is happy with his tennis career and I do believe him. The fans may have wanted more but it is not up to us to tell players how to live. You know, ok, the guy's a Russki - but he ain't a bad dude.
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by Highway81 (U14059782)
posted Sep 3, 2009
Good post. I take - and agree with - your point that Safin had the ability to win more than two slams. However, the will and attitude of Federer and Nadal that you mention is all part and parcel of being a great tennis player. Safin did not possess this and, as such, I would not call him an underachiever.

I think in years to come Safin will generally be remembered as what - in my opinion - he is/was, a player who was capable of playing great rather than a great player.
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by sísívale (U11664723)
posted Sep 3, 2009
TO safin, my favourite ever Muscovite
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by Im_partial (U5448245)
posted Sep 3, 2009
Good article. Safin was always a favourite of mine, and he certainly deserves to enjoy his retirement and rewards he's garnered from the game. There comes a point in the life of a sportsman where he realises that he doesn't want to put in the training, the travel and the work necessary to play at the top level, and who are we to question that?

He won two slams, could likely have won more if he didn't come up against the Federer juggernaut. No worries.

We'll miss him, but he's given us a lot of great memories.
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by Rez (U12035313)
posted Sep 4, 2009
He beat Federer at Fed's prime time
so it wasn't an accident

IMO it was another luck for Federer that Safin was not dedicated
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by Highway81 (U14059782)
posted Sep 4, 2009
'IMO it was another luck for Federer that Safin was not dedicated'
-------------------------------------
What a ridiculous point. Federer is lucky because he had greater commitment and work ethic than Safin? Well Andy Roddick probably has just as much commitment as Federer, but is not as good a player. Is Federer lucky for that too?
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by Rez (U12035313)
posted Sep 4, 2009
We are talking about Safin not Roddick who has one element in his game

add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by Highway81 (U14059782)
posted Sep 4, 2009
'We are talking about Safin not Roddick who has one element in his game'.
-------------------------------------.
One element in your game does not get you to world number 1 and 5 slam finals. anyway, ive no time for Fed-haters (or any player-haters). go and make your rubbish points somewhere else.
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by barrystar (U3565345)
posted Sep 4, 2009
Nice article - he had a very good, not great, career but at his best tournaments he played like a great player and could beat the greats.

Almost anyone would take two slams and the No. 1 ranking, but ultimately I'd say that his w/l record of 413/260 is beneath a man of his talents. It's odd because the fact that he played more than 650 matches means you can't really call him a quitter or a part-timer, but the number of losses to lesser players is difficult to fathom when set alongside how good he could be.

An enigma then.

Perhaps the biggest disappointment for him was the Australian Open final in 2002.
add comment | complain about this comment | delete this comment
comment by real_drummo (U14007128)
posted Sep 5, 2009
He's near the top of players I enjoy watching.
Compact off both sides, moves well. Generates easy power.
Smooth.

Also when he does his blocks it's funny - unlike, say Hewitt.

Smashing 1000+ racquets isn't so bad.

Players swear on court and what not which I find much worse than a racquet smashing session.

Yes there are players would settle for 2 Slams, though with his talent should've had more. Kind of a mind over matter thing with him.

Regardless he was entertaining which to some is much more important. I found his personality much more brutally honest then most of the players who play the game now.

He retired when he knew the passion wasn't there. Others hold on and fade into obsecurity.

I don't think he underachieved at all. He produced a few great performances, but a lot of the times I watched him play he really didn't look all that special. Good serve, powerful and fairly consistent groundshots, but he didn't have a whole lot of variety. If he underachieved then I certainly think the likes of Murray and Nalbandian are due a grand slam.

Safin? nah! weak era!

Chazfazzer wrote:I don't think he underachieved at all. He produced a few great performances, but a lot of the times I watched him play he really didn't look all that special. Good serve, powerful and fairly consistent groundshots, but he didn't have a whole lot of variety. If he underachieved then I certainly think the likes of Murray and Nalbandian are due a grand slam.

I do given that his pomp or prime was from 2000-2006. In that timeframe he had an ageing Agassi, Roddick, Ferrero and Hewitt. Aside from the phenom that is Federer, I still think in the 2001-2004 period he had more than opportunity to win more Slams. I think the fact he defeated a homegrown hero at the AO 2005 showed that mentally he could hold it together, similar to Federer v Agassi later that year at Flushing Meadows. He could play within himself and not play against external factors that could affect his performances like officials or the crowd.

Safin was very talented and also had a natural powerful pysique which actually turned against him unfortunately as he got injured a big part of his career.

Under-achieved, over achieved? that's all down to who we compare him with. In my view he belongs to the underachievers group. In terms of talent he was much more naturally gifted than a Nadal, Wilander or even DJokovic actually.

BUt we know too well that talent and achievement hardly go hand in hand.

Safin, supreme talent, engaging guy as well. I really liked him and his game. But as Tenez said he was a big time underachiever. Few players have ever had the raw athletic and tennis gifts of Safin. I really can't think of any off the top of my head, Federer maybe. But Fed never had the raw power of Marat. STill he only one 2 slams and never was a consistent dominant force because he never focused all his energies on tennis. He would much rather go out and be fawned over by beautiful women, well can't say that I blame him.

socal1976 wrote:Safin, supreme talent, engaging guy as well. I really liked him and his game. But as Tenez said he was a big time underachiever. Few players have ever had the raw athletic and tennis gifts of Safin. I really can't think of any off the top of my head, Federer maybe. But Fed never had the raw power of Marat. STill he only one 2 slams and never was a consistent dominant force because he never focused all his energies on tennis. He would much rather go out and be fawned over by beautiful women, well can't say that I blame him.

It is a shame though - imagine what he could have achieved if he had a applied himself for a few years. Talent without application is such a waste.

Tenez wrote:Safin was very talented and also had a natural powerful pysique which actually turned against him unfortunately as he got injured a big part of his career.

Under-achieved, over achieved? that's all down to who we compare him with. In my view he belongs to the underachievers group. In terms of talent he was much more naturally gifted than a Nadal, Wilander or even DJokovic actually.

BUt we know too well that talent and achievement hardly go hand in hand.

Exactly, we know Nalbandian for example is more talented than Federer but one has 16 slams and the other 0 slams, unfair.

carrieg4 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Safin, supreme talent, engaging guy as well. I really liked him and his game. But as Tenez said he was a big time underachiever. Few players have ever had the raw athletic and tennis gifts of Safin. I really can't think of any off the top of my head, Federer maybe. But Fed never had the raw power of Marat. STill he only one 2 slams and never was a consistent dominant force because he never focused all his energies on tennis. He would much rather go out and be fawned over by beautiful women, well can't say that I blame him.

It is a shame though - imagine what he could have achieved if he had a applied himself for a few years. Talent without application is such a waste.

Yes Carrie, it is shame, but you know I think Marat enjoyed himself a great deal. He was an eclectic kind of guy who never did apply himself but he was once quoted as saying something like, I would never want tennis to be my whole life. Nowadays if you want to dominate at the top you have to be supremely driven regardless of the talent level. Its his life after all. But certainly, as a fan he could have really been one of the utmost legends. It would be too harsh to say he was a failure 2 slams, Davis Cups and all those big wins.

socal1976 wrote:

carrieg4 wrote:

socal1976 wrote:Safin, supreme talent, engaging guy as well. I really liked him and his game. But as Tenez said he was a big time underachiever. Few players have ever had the raw athletic and tennis gifts of Safin. I really can't think of any off the top of my head, Federer maybe. But Fed never had the raw power of Marat. STill he only one 2 slams and never was a consistent dominant force because he never focused all his energies on tennis. He would much rather go out and be fawned over by beautiful women, well can't say that I blame him.

It is a shame though - imagine what he could have achieved if he had a applied himself for a few years. Talent without application is such a waste.

Yes Carrie, it is shame, but you know I think Marat enjoyed himself a great deal. He was an eclectic kind of guy who never did apply himself but he was once quoted as saying something like, I would never want tennis to be my whole life. Nowadays if you want to dominate at the top you have to be supremely driven regardless of the talent level. Its his life after all. But certainly, as a fan he could have really been one of the utmost legends. It would be too harsh to say he was a failure 2 slams, Davis Cups and all those big wins.

True.

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Exactly, we know Nalbandian for example is more talented than Federer but one has 16 slams and the other 0 slams, unfair.

The most telling case remains Nadal. 10 slams but on a normal day can get beaten by a top50, if not top 100 when his energy is running average (though still superior to all).

Tenez wrote:

Simple_Analyst wrote:
Exactly, we know Nalbandian for example is more talented than Federer but one has 16 slams and the other 0 slams, unfair.

The most telling case remains Nadal. 10 slams but on a normal day can get beaten by a top50, if not top 100 when his energy is running average (though still superior to all).

Tenez, every great player has bad losses to lower ranked players when they are off or not completely healthy. Nadal isn't the only top ranked guy to have bad losses to top 50 type players. Tennis is timing game on your best day you can beat players you shouldn't beat and on your worst day lose to players you should never lose to. That is sports in general, didn't barcelona lose to some ukranian team in the champions league a year or two ago? I think on this and other points you are holding Nadal to standards that no one can satisfy.

socal1976 wrote:Tenez, every great player has bad losses to lower ranked players when they are off or not completely healthy.

No. Not as strickingly opposed like Nadal.

Losing to Bagdhatis, Dodig, Mayer, Garcia-lopez, being bagelled by Lacko, Murray and Federer without any apparent illness.

And then beating all those guys as if they coudl not stand a chance in a slam? What are the chance of Nadal runing out of steam in a slam? especially after what you saw last Sunday? But suddenly in Tokyo, he goes completely nackered after 9 games? be serious!

Its different and you know first of all much harder for the underdog in a slam over five sets as opposed to three. Second Nadal is always susceptible because of his counter punching style to a big flat hitter on a hard court who is feeling it. The problem with counterpunching is you have to let your opponent punch and sometimes you get caught. Remember Davy used to give him fits even James Blake because of how early and flat they would take it. Secondly, I think for Nadal his style requires him to fight for every ball and sometimes when you have ten slams in a long season and you are in some run of the mill tourney you just aren't going to fight as hard especially if the other guy looks on. I am not saying he tanks it but, subconsciously at some level he knows how hard with his game he will have to fight to come back and he has to think is this tournament in tokyo really worth it?

socal1976 wrote:Second Nadal is always susceptible because of his counter punching style to a big flat hitter on a hard court who is feeling it.

Ney...those days when a flat hitter could overcome a retriever are over...in slams. There is no surprise anymore!

In slams Nadal sends a ball players can't simply control, too much power and spin and he can hit as hard and as long as he wants in slams. There is much less zip in his balls outside slams and he tires quicker. It's as simple as that.
Motivation can be his excuse maybe but frankly, I dont believe that his motivation could drop after 9 games of a ATP500 final.

It's obvious to the eye. It's what I call evidence. Nowadays he even announces that he wont play after slams (february) to avoid embarassement....though he says embarassingly the reason of his rest before the slam.

It's time tennis fans get off the merry-go-round.

Safin was the hell of a player.

Talk about underachieving.

I found him to be Overrated and Overvalued:

Marat Safin: Overvalued and Overrated?
Othertype
by Sir Cheeky,Cherry and Blotchy (U14053381) 06 August 2009

Right, as the big guy is retiring at the end of the season. I just gotta get this outta my system.....

Firstly, everyone says how great he is, when he's what...won but two slams!

People say how good he was at his best but his talent is largely based around being bigger and stronger than anyone else. To me he just seemed the usual aggressive baseliner, belting huge forehands from the back of the court - could explain why he got injured so much!

Also, people just see his behaviour as part of his charm!........the racket smashing, screaming abuse in various languages, umpire bashing, pulling down of shorts during matches, dissing the Olympics as unimportnant, slating Wimbledon because of grass being something cows chew, when in actual fact, there's no reason on earth why he couldn't have done much better there. What this year, 1st or 2nd round defeat to a no-one? Poor show.

I also read some of the supposedly "hilarious" stuff about Marat Safin on the tour - not funny!

I aint saying he's a bad guy and wish him a happy retirement. Just can't understand why there's so much affection for him.

Anyways - Safin: Overvalued and Overrated?

In some respects I see Safin and Goran as very very similar characters...and both sublimely talented. People forget about the talent Goran had...he just self-combusted too much, and woefully underachieved.

Its rare than with genius comes iron-will control at the highest level...very rare indeed. It failed Safin and many others...

lydian wrote:In some respects I see Safin and Goran as very very similar characters...and both sublimely talented. People forget about the talent Goran had...he just self-combusted too much, and woefully underachieved.

Its rare than with genius comes iron-will control at the highest level...very rare indeed. It failed Safin and many others...

Totally agree there.

Federer and to a lesser entend McEnroe are the only 2 geniuses that really achieved with creativity in abundance in their game. Edberg next?.

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:In some respects I see Safin and Goran as very very similar characters...and both sublimely talented. People forget about the talent Goran had...he just self-combusted too much, and woefully underachieved.

Its rare than with genius comes iron-will control at the highest level...very rare indeed. It failed Safin and many others...

Totally agree there.

Federer and to a lesser entend McEnroe are the only 2 geniuses that really achieved with creativity in abundance in their game. Edberg next?.

Nastase maybe?

JuliusHMarx wrote:

Tenez wrote:

lydian wrote:In some respects I see Safin and Goran as very very similar characters...and both sublimely talented. People forget about the talent Goran had...he just self-combusted too much, and woefully underachieved.

Its rare than with genius comes iron-will control at the highest level...very rare indeed. It failed Safin and many others...

Totally agree there.

Federer and to a lesser entend McEnroe are the only 2 geniuses that really achieved with creativity in abundance in their game. Edberg next?.

Nastase maybe?

Not really. How many slams has he got? I was talking about talented/creative player who achieved! By "achieved" I mean in relative proportion of their talent.

Even Federer and McEnroe are under-achiever in my view. Though I can easily see that McEnroe and Nastase were to blame for their underachievements, I think Federer's underachieving is more related to a change of technology, conds and diet (same for Mcenroe actually to some extend) and some particularly strong physical players.

Fair enough, I thought you meant achieved in general, as opposed to in proportion to talent.

On the other hand, he was number 6 in Maxim mag's top ten "Living Sex Legends" list, which might be an over-achievement.

JuliusHMarx wrote:Fair enough, I thought you meant achieved in general, as opposed to in proportion to talent.

In that case I woudl have considered Goran, Korda and a few more. It's a fact that the most talented players hardly achieve in proportion of their talent. To achieve one needs a deadly weapon and a dedicated method with miminum creativity in it.

Essentially cause talent and pressure hardly work together.

I read that Mozart often delivered under heavy time pressure but he was lucky enough to be able to dream his music and remember it in the morning. He wrote (dreamt) of Figaro's ouverture the night or so before staging it.

Whereas one cannot dream a slam, well I do....but I don;t wake up with one!

I guess Mac imploded in the mid 80s when he took his mid-career break but never really recovered after it...he couldnt really make his talent count for that long....and the new breed were closing in on him (Becker, Edberg, Lendl even, Wilander...).

In terms of others who were creative there are guys like Mecir, Rios, Leconte, I agree with Korda, not sure about Edberg...nice BH but not sure about being creative... Sampras could be creative, especially early on in his career, but he honed his game to a more deadly form of S&V.

I would put Mac as THE most creative player. But back to Goran, I used to love watching him play as he played some really unusual shots at times...anyone ever see him playing SHBH's on clay when stretched? He was pretty good at them. And his volleying, sliced BH was exceptional...and his FH could be brilliant too. But he always seemed to have demons at the back of his mind. Shame....but so glad he got that Wimbledon win in 2001 otherwise he might have gone down as the most talented non-slam winner who had a full career.