interesting Federer interview

https://youtu.be/eJSQqyPnwbE

The last 10 minutes or so interested me the most when he talks about why it is hard to volley and easy to hit passing shots, and talks about the speed of the Aussie Open

Thanks for the link to the interview CAS.

I think Federer makes a good point about why there aren't any youngsters coming through to the top these days. It's not the increased physicality as such, but the fact that matches aren't decided anymore by a few great returns on break point.

So even if they are physically strong enough, but they cannot sustain such a high level without many unforced errors throughout the whole match.

Whether this is a good or bad thing can be debated, but it has clearly led to the situation that just a handful of guys dominate the tour and win all the big tournaments - which was not the case in the past.

Frankly though there are many ways you could interpret why no youngsters are breaking through but why not just be truthful and say the current crop aren’t good enough yet.

Well it's a fact that they aren't good enough yet CC: they aren't winning anything big!

But HOW COME in all previous "era's" the youngsters were good enough, but not anymore? Only three explanations:

• the level of young players is much worse than in the past
  
• the level of the top players is much better than in the past
  
• something has changed in the game, making it almost impossible for young players to beat the top players

Probably it's a combination of these three, but I personally believe the third explanation plays a big role. So does Federer it seems.

I would say it is more a combination of one and two rather than the third. Conditions have changed but not whilst these youngsters were coming through so cant see how it has affected their development.

Federer gave some very interesting insights into why volleying is so difficult now.

Also talked about the slowing conditions and how it would be nice to have a variety of speed surfaces on tour because it would make the players better and more well rounded. It would be more challenging.

These were all answers in response to direct questions.

I was amazed at how differently the courts play during day and night sessions. Fed said at least 30% slower at night. The ball doesn't fly through the air and the courts soak up all the speed at night.

I hope they use a slightly faster court this year to balance things out a bit. I don't mind the AUS ope being a slow-medium HC, but treacle is just no good for spectators. Completely takes away the creative shotmaking and attacking aspect of the game.

Yes I would like to see some faster court surfaces as well but that is out of our hands and seemingly the players. I do feel faster courts would be more to Murray's liking by the way.

Yes Murray is quite adept on the faster surfaces. His best results last year were on the faster (relatively speaking of course, since they're not quite as fast as they used to be) courts: W, USO, Dubai etc.

I just feel that faster courts reward risk taking and bold shotmaking. Surely it is more fun to watch a rally end on a superb winner rather than an error due to exhaustion. The guys are so fast and fit now that speeding up conditions slightly will only enhance the play. We'll still get long rallies but we'll also get some shorter and mid-length rallies. The faster courts also allow better changes in pace because it is always possible to hit a low paced shot on any surface condition but it becomes much more tricky to hit the ball with genuine pace and penetration when the courts are so slow and the bounce is so high. I thought the Murray - Fed final in Dubai was a fantastic match.

It seems a no brainer to me that there needs to be a balance on the tour. Unfortunately at the moment there is huge preponderance tpwards the slower surfaces.

And so the journey continues, from denial through defensive justification and now edging towards acceptance, that the sport has changed too radically for its own good.

From time delays through courts, what some of us have said for a long time is becoming mainstream. Pity it'll take a few years to cause the essential alterations, but they will come, and this period will be looked back upon as similar to the late 90's.

Odd how people see things differently. I thought the first few games in Dubai were terrific but Murray then played extremely poorly. By the second set, even Fed's level had dipped, as Murray was making so many errors he had no rhythm. Agree on the overall point though!

Good interview. When I see Fed speaking in such an intelligent, articulate way, my worry is that when he retires, the game will lose him completely. I hope he can be bothered to be involved in coaching or the media in some way.

There are two big issues with regard to court speeds for me:
1) The lack of a grass court masters

2) The speed of the USO. I have no problem with Australia being slow, it is, after all, supposed to be the "slow hard court" slam. The USO though is supposed to be quicker and that's not happening. Wimbledon has become slower but I don't have a huge issue with it. Watching how Novak can move brilliantly on hard court but have difficulty on Wimbledon grass suggests to me that it still offers variety. Likewise with Andy on RG clay.

HM Murdoch wrote:Good interview. When I see Fed speaking in such an intelligent, articulate way, my worry is that when he retires, the game will lose him completely. I hope he can be bothered to be involved in coaching or the media in some way.

There are two big issues with regard to court speeds for me:
1) The lack of a grass court masters

2) The speed of the USO. I have no problem with Australia being slow, it is, after all, supposed to be the "slow hard court" slam. The USO though is supposed to be quicker and that's not happening. Wimbledon has become slower but I don't have a huge issue with it. Watching how Novak can move brilliantly on hard court but have difficulty on Wimbledon grass suggests to me that it still offers variety. Likewise with Andy on RG clay.

I only differ with you over Wimbledon; I'd settle for speed but it's the high bounce that changes the event completely. Low bounces make volleying the leading tactic, which I suggest is what should mark that tournament out.

Personally I prefer fast high bouncing surfaces for Wimbledon

bogbrush wrote:I only differ with you over Wimbledon; I'd settle for speed but it's the high bounce that changes the event completely. Low bounces make volleying the leading tactic, which I suggest is what should mark that tournament out.

Yes, that's a good point.

I'd prefer a lower bounce too but I believe the higher bounce is a by-product of the more resilient courts that (supposedly) don't get as bald by the second week. In which case, it may be tricky to remedy.

Good stuff from Roger. I thought it was one of his best interviews. To me he seems relaxed and happy with the situation of not being the outright number one. I mentioned a while ago, that as soon as he respected the fact that no-one can be top dog forever - he would be dangerous and so it proved at Wimbledon

I also think he's given the best appraisal of the failure of the youngsters to breakthrough. In other words, they need to be more mentally mature because you can't just 'hit and hope' anymore

really interesting interview with the ever articulate and interesting Fed - thank you for posting CAS

I found the last bit fascinating, at first I thought he was referring to Nadals forehand but he must mean Murray and Djokovic using their left hand to pull the ball cross court which they are so good at doing