10
Michael Chang Explains How Smaller Players Can Slay Dragons
28 Comments · Posted by Scoop Malinowski in Bios
Michael Chang was one of the more fascinating great players of the modern era. How he won the French Open as a seventeen year old was one of the most remarkable achievements in tennis history.
Chang recently did an interview with the Australian based tennis site www.TennisFrontier.com and shared some of his views on the modern game. Though tennis is changing to a more explosive game ruled by powerhouse physical specimens like Nadal, Murray, Del Potro, Djokovic, Berdych, Janowicz, Raonic, Chang still feels the smaller guys can get the job done. He also believes his game would adapt to this modern era.
“I would never say a smaller player has a disadvantage in tennis,” said Chang. “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. I do believe I could have adapted to this current era as well just because the same questions were asked of me when I first played on tour. I would get plenty of comments like, he’s too small, his serve isn’t big enough, he doesn’t have enough weapons, etc. You believe what you want to believe but for me, I know where my strength is, and I would never listen to what other people think I can or can not do. If I did that, I never would have even turned pro.”
Another interesting comment Chang made was about the homogenization of surfaces, strings, racquet technology in the current era and if he likes or dislikes today’s game?
“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. Everyone is unique and special and that should be celebrated!”
Chang obviously loves and appreciates the modern game. And if it’s good enough a show to entertain Chang, it should be for fans as well.
No tags
Mitch · October 10, 2013 at 9:42 pm
Ferrer and Davydenko have shown that smaller players can compete at a high level, though apart from maybe one Aussie Open, neither was truly a slam contender.
Andrew Miller · October 10, 2013 at 10:08 pm
Chang himself could not replicate the French triumph. I think he would have won another if it weren’t for Sampras – nor unlike the roddick scenario if federer weren’t always waiting for him.
That said it has been a while since someone tried something as bold as changs underhand serve. Really caught the imagination of the crowd .
Dan Markowitz · October 11, 2013 at 8:35 am
What about this Djoko-Monfils match where Monfils took the first set? It’s mildly entertaining, but to me this is what is wrong with the tour today. You’ve got two outrageously athletic players and rarely does either one of them come up to the net. Monfils is looking for a Simone to engage in one of his boring backcourt battles and fortunately, at least, Djoko is mostly being the aggressor, but still rarely venturing up to net. Speed these courts up, please! Let’s see a little all court tennis.
Scoop Malinowski · October 11, 2013 at 9:37 am
Hey I like the way Simon hits the ball and that he can hang in there and play such consistent tennis. Simon is a wall, he even can dominate Hewitt from the baseline and that’s saying something. These guys know how to play and going to the net and giving players like Simon and Monfils a target is a boneheaded tactic )
Dan markowitz · October 11, 2013 at 9:59 am
Maybe so, but Monfils-Simon matches are beau coup boring. I just get tired of how passive Monfils plays most of the time. Now this Nadal-Wawrinka match is stellar. Even though Rafa has beaten Stan 10 times in a row, I think this matchup is the best in tennis today. These guys don’t stall in the rally. They go all out. The power, intensity and angles are unreal and both are looking to come up to net to shorten points. It is a heavyweight matchup and i love the way Stan goes after Rafa’s cross-court fh with his ridiculously-good bh. It’s brilliant stuff.
Scoop Malinowski · October 11, 2013 at 10:07 am
Stan’s played the best tennis of his career this year. If he were to qualify for London with Roger missing, how interesting would that be. To see Federer as first or second alternate. )
Dan markowitz · October 11, 2013 at 10:27 am
You know, Scoop, as I watch this match I think of how you discredit Sampras. He came up with Agassi, Courier and Chang and dominated these guys. Nadal has come up with Djoko and Murray and those guys have had their way with Rada in a way that Andre, Jim and Chang never did with Pete.
Nadal is amazing, but I’m betting Pete wouldnt let him play like Nadal. Stan reminds me of Bekee, but not as good. Stan is staying toe to toe with Rafa. Pete killed Becker, but I think Becker would do well against Nadal.
Here’s the thing. I think Agassi is as good as Djoko and while Djoko had a year where he killed Nadal, Agassi never did that to Pete.
Scoop Malinowski · October 11, 2013 at 1:31 pm
No way is Agassi on Djokovic’s level. No way. Djokovic moves better, maybe returns better too. Djokovic is a better athlete than Agassi. I believe Agassi as even said Djokovic is better than he was.
Scoop Malinowski · October 11, 2013 at 1:33 pm
Dan I was always a Pete guy, he was my guy in that era after Rios. Pete was a machine, but we saw how fragile that backhand could be. Rafa would have ate that thing up and Pete would be hangdoggin all over the court. I just know Rafa would have got that Pete serve back too.
Dan Markowitz · October 11, 2013 at 2:28 pm
Do you agree Agassi had a better backhand than Nadal? If on, how come Agassi didn’t East-West Sampras like he did everyone else? At the beginning of Fed’s career, I saw just toy with Federer. He never did that to Sampras.
Look, I’ll take Spadea’s opinion over yours, Scoop or anyone else’s on this site, unless someone else who posts can they say they played both guys multiple times.
He said Nadal didn’t do anything spectacular. It was his will that makes him a great player. Sampras, he said, was the toughest because he didn’t let you play your game or any game. Sampras took the racket out of your hands.
Scoop Malinowski · October 11, 2013 at 2:50 pm
Nobody is knocking the racquet out of Rafa’s hands. He finds a way to slay any and all dragons. Pete’s dragon would get slayed eventually. Might take a while on grass but Rafa and Uncle Toni would eventually find the right formula.
Dan Markowitz · October 11, 2013 at 3:32 pm
Oh yeah, this from a guy who’s been beaten by Lucas Rasol and Steve Darcis at Wimbledon. Please.
Scoop Malinowski · October 11, 2013 at 7:31 pm
We’re talking Pete and Rafa at their best. If you want to play that game: Pete lost to George Bastl, Jaime Yzaga and Karol Kucera. And Richard Krajicek at Wimbledon. Has Pete ever played an exo vs. Nadal? I don’t think so. Maybe he’d rather not.
Dan Markowitz · October 11, 2013 at 7:54 pm
Only lost to Bastl at Big W. Losing to Krajicek at the Big W is not an embarrassing loss. I love Nadal as a player. I just think a lot of you are discounting how great Pete was. I know you share Rios’ opinion of him, but Rios never beat Sampras and he lost five out of six sets to him, including a straight setter at RG.
Scoop Malinowski · October 11, 2013 at 8:37 pm
Rios was about eighteen when he lost to Pete at FO 6 6 and 4. He gave him a battle. THen they played one other time in 02 or 03 at the end of Rios’ career and it was also a close match won by Pete, on a fast indoor court in Europe. I think Pete was the GOAT before Fed came along. He was the guy on top when I really got into tennis seriously. Loved his game. Huge serve, beautiful athleticism, mental machine, movement like a panther. Wily as a coyote too. Pete was sweet and complete except for his foibles on the dirt. Then Fed and Rafa came along and took tennis to a new level.
Andrew Miller · October 11, 2013 at 10:42 pm
Sampras was truly great. He had a similar ferocity to Nadal – I think Uncle Toni basically borrowed Rios’ playbook and Sampras’ on court mentality and poured it into young Nadal.
Djokovic’ backhand reminds me of Agassi. Overall Djokovic is very much an Agassi 2.0, does much of what Agassi did, but taller and faster with a better serve and a better volley. Agassi had him on the forehand, probably on the return of serve. That return of serve won Agassi Wimbledon against huge servers in the era of slippery courts and low bouncing balls.
Speaking of small players, Tim Smyczek beat Donald Young out in Tiburon. Both Jenkins and Young went down, in doubles and singles, both times in three sets. Jenkins lost to former Canadian #1, juniors and pros when Dancevic was off his mark, Pete Polansky.
Scoop Malinowski · October 12, 2013 at 10:04 am
Andrew, for my Rios book I actually asked Toni Nadal about if Rios was an inspiration who he used as a model to fashion Rafa’s game and he said no. He said he asked a lot of the Spanish players about Rios and about his character and he said he used other great champion players to model Rafa.
Dan Markowitz · October 12, 2013 at 11:24 am
I’m glad you injected this, Scoop, because I totally disagree that there is a lot of Rios in Nadal’s game. Again, the player I draw the closest analogy to with Rafa is Vilas.
What happened today? Delpo came out and cleaned Nadal’s clock! He took the Spaniards short balls and rammed them down his throat and he somehow took a lot of the gusto out of Nadal’s game. Delpo is amazing. The guy loses to Lleyton Hewitt at the Open and then plays a match like today.
Scoop Malinowski · October 12, 2013 at 12:46 pm
I think Rafa would rather lose to Delpo than Djokovic for the second time in a row. This result has the makings of a “subconscious tank” in Jack Kramer terminology.
Mitch · October 12, 2013 at 2:03 pm
I only saw the second set, but Rafa was clearly playing to win.
Scoop Malinowski · October 12, 2013 at 2:40 pm
Mitch, was Rafa grunting and shrieking with the utmost of urgency? Like it was the French Open final?
Andrew Miller · October 12, 2013 at 3:07 pm
Scoop – that is interesting about Uncle Toni regarding Nadal’s character, which is a world of difference from playing style. In fact, on June 23, 2013 your quotation from Uncle Toni said as much. He wanted Nadal to be of strong character, and apparently to play a spectacular game. Nadal doesn’t play like Borg, Federer or Santana, the people Toni says were “models”. A model of character is different than a model of playing. He could teach Nadal a style that confounds the opponents and a Sampras-like mentality that kept Nadal hungry.
And that’s more or less what he did. Here’s what Toni said from your interview.
““His game was spectacular game. He played extremely good. (Was he an inspiration. model, as a lefty, in developing Rafael?) No. Inspiration for me was people who are very thoughtful and correct when they’re on the court. Rios was a very good, talented player. But he is not my player, not my dream model player. Rios was very good. I spoke with all the people who play with him, they say he has a very good talent. But truth, I like other kind of players. (Like who?) Many. Like Federer. Like Borg. Like Santana. Many, many players.—
Dan Markowitz · October 12, 2013 at 6:17 pm
Scoop,
This idea that Nadal might be semi-tanking so he doesn’t have to face Djoko in the finals is absurd. You don’t get to be a player like Nadal if you start tanking. Come on, he’s facing DelPo and that’s where his attention lies. I noticed that he didn’t have the same fury as he usually does, but I think that had to do more with DelPo taking the match out of his hands than Nadal not trying so he wouldn’t have to face Djoko.
As a competitor, you don’t want to have that in the back of your mind that you tanked so you wouldn’t have to face your biggest rival.
Andrew Miller · October 12, 2013 at 6:59 pm
Maybe Nadal may feel he needs to win wtf now.
In other news Federer drops Annacone. The coaching ran its course and I doubt Annacone will coach any pro for a while.
Andrew Miller · October 12, 2013 at 7:07 pm
The indoor circuit doesn’t matter much to Nadal. He generally takes his foot off the pedal given it isn’t leading anywhere . Remember Nadal was among the first to say the season is too long. I think basically he means he can do without the indoor segment and would prefer the ATP realign the system so that there is an off season and top players get more flexibility. Even though top players enjoy the appearance money this time of year maybe Nadal wants the powers that be to save tennis from itself.
Scoop Malinowski · October 12, 2013 at 7:14 pm
Dan, the fine line difference of playing all out full speed maximum super charged tennis and trying very hard could be the difference between winning and losing. I didn’t see this match but I have seen Nadal not play his insane brand of super charged tennis in situations like this. It’s all about preserving the body at this point, there is no need to kill himself to beat Delpo and Djokovic in Shanghai Masters, nothing is on the line, number one is a wrap. You need to read about Jack Kramer’s “subconscious tank” theory.
Scoop Malinowski · October 12, 2013 at 7:14 pm
I would like to see Federer rehire Peter Lundgren.
Bryan · October 13, 2013 at 6:08 pm
I don’t think Chang’s game would hold up today. Fact he was undersized in his own era and made adjustments to notch some big wins doesn’t mean the same would apply today.
Imagine Chang trying to return serve and break a Janowicz, Raonic or Delpo who beast their serve and then move opponents around. Carnage. Chang would have to rush the net a lot but guys like Delpo just hit around them with the forehand.