Michael Chang Interview

[britbox]

Michael Chang was kind enough to give up his valuable time and I forwarded some of the questions raised by the members. (some were combined or paraphrased)

The interview can be read here:

http://www.tennisfrontier.com/blogs/britbox/down-the-t-3-michael-chang-interview/

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

Good job BB.

 

[Moxie]

Great interview, and you did a great job of consolidating the questions. Interesting point about homogenization of surfaces...the idea that so many factors are involved. And also why tennis isn't just destined to be a tall man's game.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Many thanks for that interview.I enjoyed reading it.

 

[Denis]

Great read BB, thanks. Kind of funny that Chang has been able to avoid talking to Lendl about their RG match. It made me smile as I can totally imagine it.

 

[Front242]

Great job, britbox. Read it just now in work. And I second Denisovich. Funny about avoiding talking to Lendl about that match lol.

 

[scoop]

Excellent read. Always a pleasure to hear a tennis mastermind like Michael Chang talk about tennis. Like how he worded that he believes he would be able to succeed and thrive in this era just like he did in his own very challenging era. Also like the part about Lendl [smile] and how he believes smaller players can offset the bigger players. And thanks Britbox for including my Hewitt question, much appreciated.

 

[britbox]

Thanks Scoop - will drop you an email about the book.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

good int with mr chang britbox .

i noticed the 'lendl question' ..never brings up rg89 lol, that defo a good idea not mentioning that :snigger

 

[Kieran]

He's very tactful, isn't he? Careful about what he says about his peers, which is great. His reply on the homogenisation is interesting, because he says there are more factors involved - climate, balls, etc - and so it'll never "truly happen."

The man is thoughtful about what he says - I like him!

 

[Riotbeard]

Great interview BB!

 

[Moxie]

He's very tactful, isn't he? Careful about what he says about his peers, which is great. His reply on the homogenisation is interesting, because he says there are more factors involved - climate, balls, etc - and so it'll never "truly happen."

The man is thoughtful about what he says - I like him!

Yes, and we talk about that rather a lot here. I wanted to note the whole quote:

Homogenization will never truly happen.

The simple reason is because there are way too many differing factors in different places where pros play around the world. They tried to do that with something as simple as balls being played each week and it couldn’t be done.

Weather conditions, altitude, humidity already make each city different in playing conditions. I think it’s exciting and fun that players play with different equipment, and surfaces are changing during the seasons.

 

[Iona16]

Fabulous interview. I really enjoyed reading it.

 

[tented]

As someone who can't stand tall-man tennis (Karlovic, Isner, Anderson, Janowicz, Raonic, etc.), I like that Chang said, "I would never say a smaller player has a disadvantage in tennis. They may not be able to hit as hard or serve as big but tennis is not all about that. Being one of the smaller players on tour, there are always ways to beat the bigger players and being smaller and quicker has its advantages. I do think a smaller player does need to be able to play different styles, though, because it keeps bigger players off balance and guessing."

This brings to mind guys like David Ferrer, Fabrice Santoro, Olivier Rochus, and of course Kei Nishikori. They've had varying amounts of success, but none of them has won a Major, and only Ferrer has made it to a final. Ferrer has won only one Masters, Santoro won a single 500 Series, Rochus has two 250s, and Nishikori has two 500s and one 250. Not exactly Hall of Fame credentials.

As much as I would like to believe Chang is correct, I can't help but think this is no longer the case. Tall-man tennis is here to stay. If anything, we'll see more and more of them. Combine that with the technology advances since Chang's days, and I don't see much of a future for guys under six feet.

I also think tennis will suffer more broadly with the influx of tall guys. It will be boring for the casual viewer to watch Isner/Karlovic-type finals, where serving is key. It's not a coincidence in this post-Sampras era that rallies are in vogue, instead of serve-and-volley. Short of raising the net, and altering the effectiveness of the serve of guys 6'5" and over, things could become quite dull.

And why not raise the net? Consider the average height of men in the 18th and 19th centuries, when tennis was being standardized. The average was around 5'5" to 5'7" -- and they decided the net should be 3' in the center.

If you use 5'6" as the average, 3' was about 54% of their height. If you take 6'6" as the average, that's only 46%. For the net to be 54%, it would need to be raised approximately 6.25" -- to about 3'6".

How would Raonic and Janowicz fair with a half-foot increase in the height of the net? It would be interesting to test it.

 

[Moxie]

^ So many interesting ideas in there, tented. I'd hate to raise the net and concede to 'tall-man' tennis, completely. I'm wondering who was the last man to win a Slam who stood under 6'. I think I have the answer on the tallest players: Safin and Del Potro. (3 total, and relative out-lyers.) Anyone else?

You may be right that there isn't much future for the guys under a certain height, but I hope there will be an evolution in terms of the tall guys: that they can't just be one-note players, relying on serving from a tree with not much else going on. Mobility still counts for a lot on court, and the tallest guys rarely excel at it. And the Big Four are all 6'1-6'3. That still seems more like a sweet-spot for success.

 

[britbox]

Gaudio was probably the last. I can't think of anyone else since him.

 

[Mog]

Well done britbox.
Thank you for bringing such interview from pros.
It was a good read.

 

[masterclass]

As someone who can't stand tall-man tennis (Karlovic, Isner, Anderson, Janowicz, Raonic, etc.), I like that Chang said, "I would never say a smaller player has a disadvantage in tennis. They may not be able to hit as hard or serve as big but tennis is not all about that. Being one of the smaller players on tour, there are always ways to beat the bigger players and being smaller and quicker has its advantages. I do think a smaller player does need to be able to play different styles, though, because it keeps bigger players off balance and guessing."

This brings to mind guys like David Ferrer, Fabrice Santoro, Olivier Rochus, and of course Kei Nishikori. They've had varying amounts of success, but none of them has won a Major, and only Ferrer has made it to a final. Ferrer has won only one Masters, Santoro won a single 500 Series, Rochus has two 250s, and Nishikori has two 500s and one 250. Not exactly Hall of Fame credentials.

As much as I would like to believe Chang is correct, I can't help but think this is no longer the case. Tall-man tennis is here to stay. If anything, we'll see more and more of them. Combine that with the technology advances since Chang's days, and I don't see much of a future for guys under six feet.

I also think tennis will suffer more broadly with the influx of tall guys. It will be boring for the casual viewer to watch Isner/Karlovic-type finals, where serving is key. It's not a coincidence in this post-Sampras era that rallies are in vogue, instead of serve-and-volley. Short of raising the net, and altering the effectiveness of the serve of guys 6'5" and over, things could become quite dull.

And why not raise the net? Consider the average height of men in the 18th and 19th centuries, when tennis was being standardized. The average was around 5'5" to 5'7" -- and they decided the net should be 3' in the center.

If you use 5'6" as the average, 3' was about 54% of their height. If you take 6'6" as the average, that's only 46%. For the net to be 54%, it would need to be raised approximately 6.25" -- to about 3'6".

How would Raonic and Janowicz fair with a half-foot increase in the height of the net? It would be interesting to test it.

Super interview britbox! Thanks again for taking our questions and getting Michael's answers.

Interesting thoughts tented. I too have often thought about the height question when talking about a one size fit all standard court that was determined long ago (1877-1882) when the average player height was less than today. I believe most agree that the biggest advantage in bigger height comes in the service. It is the single shot where the individual has the most control of the point, and it is meant to give one an advantage. But a smaller player today is at a clear disadvantage from a pure mathematical standpoint.

I don't like the raising the net idea, because it puts the small player at even a larger disadvantage.

My idea (though it might look strange) would be to use graduated service lines on the court. Taller players would have to serve from lines further back that were made based on a mathematical equation that would equalize the heights by increasing the serving distance from the net.

The slope of the line that goes from the service line to the top of the center of the net is 1/7 or 1 foot rise for each 7 feet of run. The distance from a service line to the opposite baseline is 60 ft. The height of a ball over the baseline on that imaginary line with that slope would be about 8' 7" or 103 inches. The average pro player makes contact with the ball at 1.5 times their height according to studies made by Bruce Elliot.

So a player would have to be about 68 2/3 inches tall to hit a flat serve on a line that hit's the opponents service line*. A player 6 ft tall would have to stand 3 ft behind the baseline to serve a ball on that same flat slope trajectory as the player 5' 8.67" on the baseline. A player 6' 8" tall or 80" would need to serve about 10 ft behind the baseline to achieve the same slope.

Though it seems more fair, I doubt if many current taller players would agree to this change.

*Of course, this is without needing to account for gravity or ball speed or spin. Higher ball speed reduces the time gravity has to act on the ball. Lower speed and topspin will help get the ball in the box easier.

Respectfully,
masterclass

 

[Iona16]

^ So many interesting ideas in there, tented. I'd hate to raise the net and concede to 'tall-man' tennis, completely. I'm wondering who was the last man to win a Slam who stood under 6'. I think I have the answer on the tallest players: Safin and Del Potro. (3 total, and relative out-lyers.) Anyone else?

The ATP website have Hewitt and Agassi listed as 5'11. Agassi was the last person under 6' to win a slam - Australian Open in 03. Before that it was Hewitt at Wimbledon 03.

 

[britbox]

^ So many interesting ideas in there, tented. I'd hate to raise the net and concede to 'tall-man' tennis, completely. I'm wondering who was the last man to win a Slam who stood under 6'. I think I have the answer on the tallest players: Safin and Del Potro. (3 total, and relative out-lyers.) Anyone else?

The ATP website have Hewitt and Agassi listed as 5'11. Agassi was the last person under 6' to win a slam - Australian Open in 03. Before that it was Hewitt at Wimbledon 03.

Gaudio won the FO in 04 so he just pips Agassi to the post.