Interview w/Michael Chang(& his recollection of beating Federer)

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Old competitive juices are flowing
Published March 1, 2006

This isn't going to be like the old Jimmy Connors seniors tour, where it was essential that Jimmy, the No. 1 ticket attraction, got through to the final day. This is going to be derriere-kicking tennis.

"Don't you think I know that?" said Michael Chang. "I'm sure there are people who think it's a bunch of retired guys going out there to hit some balls and have a few laughs. I know the truth. I know Jim Courier and John McEnroe well enough. Since when have they played a match just for fun?"

You could hear the light laughter in Chang's voice over the telephone. "Those guys don't even play pro-ams for fun."

Chang then recalled that he and Courier were practicing a few days before the start of a tournament in Cincinnati in 1995. "Jim says, `You want to play a set or two?' I said, `Let's just play some points.' And he said, `Why don't you want to play?''' And Chang explained that they were on a collision course to play in the quarters, and he didn't want to give Courier any sort of psychological edge.

They did play in the quarters, and Chang won. In fact, they played 24 times between 1989 and 1999 and split them right down the middle -- a dozen each.

Number 25 could come next week when Chang, Courier, McEnroe, Pat Cash, Mats Wilander, Petr Korda, Mikael Pernfors and Aaron Krickstein converge on Naples to play the first of four seniors events being promoted by Inside Out Sports in what could be the resurrection of a seniors tour in the United States.

McEnroe and Courier have been highly visible since retirement from the ATP Tour, and now it will be good to see Chang on court again, 21/2 years after his final match.

He still has his home on Mercer Island, a short boat ride from Seattle, but he's living more or less permanently in Los Angeles, where he's attending Talbot School of Theology in La Mirada.

"The first few weeks were kind of a shock to the system," he explained. "I hadn't been in school since I was 15."

It's not surprising that Chang is studying ministry. For years when he was a top-10 player he would insist that this is what he had in mind when he retired and, regardless of your religious commitment in life, you had to respect Chang's devotion.

What is surprising is that he's back to play. I could see that with Courier and even Pete Sampras, when he gets tired of golfing every day and watching SportsCenter. But not Chang, who seemed to have a higher calling in life than sports.

Still, he's evidently found there's room for both.

"I miss the competition," he said. "I can't say I miss the day-in and day-out training, the sprints, long-distance running. But being in the tournaments ... that was the easiest part. It was never difficult for me to get up for matches."

One Grand Slam title (1989 French Open), three other Grand Slam finals, 34 titles overall and 662 victories and Chang will be back on court, probably looking as fit as he did during his 16-year career.

"I haven't allowed myself to balloon out of shape," he said. And he's been training with American juniors at the USTA facility in Carson, Calif.

There were so many memorable matches for Chang, but he seemed fixed a bit during our conversation on his one win, in five tries, over Roger Federer -- at Halle in 2000, on grass.

"I was playing serve-and-volley tennis, and I beat him pretty badly," said Chang. "I was just returning everything, and he couldn't get a return in. A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with Eliot Teltscher [USTA coach]. We had grown up watching Pete and we were wondering, if Pete and Roger played at their best, who would win?

"One of the things Roger has going for him is that nowadays he never faces a true serve-and-volleyer."

Chang will arrive in Naples a few days early to get some practice in. Courier will be waiting and asking, no doubt, if he'd like to play a couple of sets.

http://www.sun-sentinel.com/sports/columnists/sfl-brickten01mar01,0,4882244.column
 

ACE of Hearts

Bionic Poster
Well, Chang looks like is gloating on that Fed victory:mrgreen: , how old was Fed?The guy couldnt control his emotions on the court.I never buy into the serve and volley play.
 

ximian

Rookie
I've just got to give a little shout out to the Talbot School of Theology at Biola University, because I'm currently an undergrad at Biola. Great school, and I'm not one bit surprised that's where Chang is studying. I've had the opportunity to meet and talk to him a bit (even hit with him a little, too! :) ) and he's a really down-to-earth, great guy. I'm sure he'll do great on the senior tour.
 

VGP

Legend
Remember, Chang broke his hip in '98. His career was never the same after that.

If I straight setted Federer on grass, I'd gloat a bit too.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
He fractured his hip at the end of 89, & started playing tournaments in 1990 with it.

VGP was referring to Chang's MCL injury in early '98. He clearly lost speed after that injury & plummeted in the rankings.
 

jamauss

Hall of Fame
Virtuous said:
I wonder if this thread title may apply to roddick in 10 yrs......
lol I get a suspicious feeling it will.

Roddick interviewing: "I remember back when I took a set off of Roger in the mens wimby final!"

interviewer: "Yeah, Roger won 10 wimbledons. How many did you win?"

Roddick: "Shuddup. This interview is over."
 

8PAQ

Banned
jamauss said:
lol I get a suspicious feeling it will.

Roddick interviewing: "I remember back when I took a set off of Roger in the mens wimby final!"

interviewer: "Yeah, Roger won 10 wimbledons. How many did you win?"

Roddick: "Shuddup. This interview is over."

:D
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
from '98
"then in Indian Wells I was practicing with Andrei Medvedev and the sprinklers came out on the part of the clay court next to where we were practicing and I slipped on some of the mist that was coming over and that was a freak accident. I tore about 25% of my MCL and that took a little bit of time to get back."

Check out Chang's record in '97 & compare to '98. Pretty remarkable decline in one year's time. A major injury can do that.
 

arosen

Hall of Fame
Funny how he never mentioned that Fed owned him othewise. I can't blame him, though. He had his one day in the sun, and he will forever look fondly upon the memory of it. Nobody beats M.Chang 20 times in a row, not even Fed!
 

Galactus

Banned
Moose Malloy said:
"I was playing serve-and-volley tennis, and I beat him pretty badly," said Chang. "I was just returning everything, and he couldn't get a return in. A few weeks ago, I had a conversation with Eliot Teltscher [USTA coach]. We had grown up watching Pete and we were wondering, if Pete and Roger played at their best, who would win?

"One of the things Roger has going for him is that nowadays he never faces a true serve-and-volleyer."
That's something almost no-one picks up on: Federer has feasted on baseliners for the last 4 years.
No Beckers, Rafters, Ivanisevics, Sampras, Krajiceks...it'd be interesting to see how Federer's defensive-chip-off-a-big-1st-serve, would fare against a true serve-and-volleyer coming in...

Oh, I forgot - he has: Tim Henman. :mrgreen:
 

VGP

Legend
No offense to Tim, but he's no Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek, Edberg (Tim's hero)......
 

Galactus

Banned
VGP said:
No offense to Tim, but he's no Becker, Sampras, Rafter, Krajicek, Edberg (Tim's hero)......
He isn't, but even past his best, Henman, a good but true serve-and-volleyer, is 6-4 vs Federer.
Now, hypothetically, put a 'Grade-A' serve-and-volleyer (like the list I've lready posted), on a decent court-surface and I think you'd see Federer struggle.
 

VGP

Legend
Galactus said:
He isn't, but even past his best, Henman, a good but true serve-and-volleyer, is 6-4 vs Federer.
Now, hypothetically, put a 'Grade-A' serve-and-volleyer (like the list I've lready posted), on a decent court-surface and I think you'd see Federer struggle.

Yeah, I'd love to see Federer constantly pressed to hit passing shot after passing shot. Or, counter by having to come into net more than he does now.

He's in a groove on tour and I'd like to see some guys bust that up.

It would be interesting to see how Federer responds....

(#800)
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Yeah, I'd love to see Federer constantly pressed to hit passing shot after passing shot. Or, counter by having to come into net more than he does now.

He's in a groove on tour and I'd like to see some guys bust that up.

With the ultra slow surfaces today, could be a long time before that happens. Even Henman really doesn't S&V that much compared to how he played in the 90s.
 

Galactus

Banned
VGP said:
Yeah, I'd love to see Federer constantly pressed to hit passing shot after passing shot. Or, counter by having to come into net more than he does now.

He's in a groove on tour and I'd like to see some guys bust that up.

It would be interesting to see how Federer responds....

(#800)
Thing is, Henman was 7-1 v Federer around March '04, which was arguably the beginning of Federer's peak (2004: 3 Grand Slams)...now, I reckon since then, his main competition has dropped off significantly (Roddick - gone; Hewitt - gone; Safin - gone).
Given that:
a) Henman's peak was the late 90s
b) he isn't as good as the other guys in my S&V list and
c) Federer hasn't faced anyone of that caliber...on a fast, true surface.

The evidence is there for all to argue and debate for years to come!!
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Galactus said:
That's something almost no-one picks up on: Federer has feasted on baseliners for the last 4 years.
No Beckers, Rafters, Ivanisevics, Sampras, Krajiceks...it'd be interesting to see how Federer's defensive-chip-off-a-big-1st-serve, would fare against a true serve-and-volleyer coming in...

Oh, I forgot - he has: Tim Henman. :mrgreen:

This has been talked about to death. Federer beat Sampras on fast grass in 2001 at wimbledon when Sampras was serving and volleying on every point. People who say Federer can only defensive-chip-off-a-big-1st-serve should watch that match.

There is a reason there are few serve and volleyer left. The courts and balls on ATP has gradually slowed down since late 90s. That's why Federer has adjusted his game to slower courts. He used to play a fast court style, going for his shots a lot more in late 90s to early 00s.

I am sure even if there were more serve and volleyers today, and Federer beat them all, people still would find playing styles Federer couldn't, haven't beat. That's all they have left for picking on Federer, plus the French!

Federer is talented enough to play all styles of tennis, and playing against all styles of tennis. To me, the only question left for Federer to answer is his longevity.
 

simi

Hall of Fame
8PAQ said:

I wouldn't go quite that far. Of the eleven sets that Roger won, only one could be considered a "blowout" (a 6-1 score). All of the rest of them were either 6-4 or 6-3, just a single break per set, (and one tiebreak). Sounds like the matches could have gone either way with a few points here or there. And, these were at the end of Michael's career, when he wasn't playing anywhere as good as he had the previous decade.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
This has been talked about to death. Federer beat Sampras on fast grass in 2001 at wimbledon when Sampras was serving and volleying on every point. People who say Federer can only defensive-chip-off-a-big-1st-serve should watch that match.

And Barry Cowan almost beat Sampras in that tournament, so clearly Sampras was at his best that event;)
And didn't Federer lose to Henman the next match? And Henman certainly wasn't in the league of other 90s fast grass experts like Becker, Ivanisevic, etc.

There is a reason there are few serve and volleyer left. The courts and balls on ATP has gradually slowed down since late 90s. That's why Federer has adjusted his game to slower courts. He used to play a fast court style, going for his shots a lot more in late 90s to early 00s.

Federer is an amazing talent, but I don't think he'd be dominating the game if the conditions were the same as the 90s. I've seen his matches with Ljubicic at Rotterdam & Shanghai last year, probably the fastest courts on tour & he really looked uncomfortable with the speed/tone of the match.
I re-watched '96 Masters RR Sampras-Becker. Still one of the most exposive tennis matches I've ever seen. I don't think Federer would have enjoyed playing that kind of match, being under that kind of pressure. I'm sure somebody is going to pipe in with his record vs limited players like Mirnyi, Dent, etc. To compare them to Sampras, Becker is a bit absurd.
 

VGP

Legend
Federer did lose to Henman after beating Sampras at the '01 Wimbledon, but Federer did have a groin strain that he played through during the Sampras match, but I'm not sure if it bothered him against Henman.

(will the Federer-lovers/Sampras haters jump on the groin strain?.....hmmm)
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Moose Malloy said:
Federer is an amazing talent, but I don't think he'd be dominating the game if the conditions were the same as the 90s. I've seen his matches with Ljubicic at Rotterdam & Shanghai last year, probably the fastest courts on tour & he really looked uncomfortable with the speed/tone of the match.
I re-watched '96 Masters RR Sampras-Becker. Still one of the most exposive tennis matches I've ever seen. I don't think Federer would have enjoyed playing that kind of match, being under that kind of pressure. I'm sure somebody is going to pipe in with his record vs limited players like Mirnyi, Dent, etc. To compare them to Sampras, Becker is a bit absurd.

The problem with your argument is that you assume Federer would be the same player even if there were more fast courts today. Players change due to change of condition, especially for the great ones.

I have watched Federer play late 90s and early 00s, he used to play a style a lot more similar to Sampras and Becker than he is now. He has become a lot more conservative in his playing style the last a few years. Why? The courts and balls on ATP have slowed down a lot. To judge his level of play on fastest court today when he only plays one or twice a year is just not a convincing argument.
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
The problem with your argument is that you assume Federer would be the same player even if there were more fast courts today. Players change due to change of condition, especially for the great ones.

I have watched Federer play late 90s and early 00s, he used to play a style a lot more similar to Sampras and Becker than he is now. He has become a lot more conservative in his playing style the last a few years. Why? The courts and balls on ATP have slowed down a lot. To judge his level of play on fastest court today when he only plays one or twice a year is just not a convincing argument.

True. But I have noticed that Federer often talks about liking a rhythm when he plays. He likes to hit a lot of balls. Occasionally he will play someone who gives him no rhythm & says he doesn't like it.

Great players adjust, true. But the conditions are perfect for him today. And they were perfect for Sampras in the 90s(though they were also perfect for Becker, Ivanisevic)
 

BreakPoint

Bionic Poster
Great article, MM! Thanks for posting it.

I didn't realize that Chang had played against Federer five times, since Fed's dominance pretty much started after Chang retired. Interesting that they played so many times.
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Moose Malloy said:
True. But I have noticed that Federer often talks about liking a rhythm when he plays. He likes to hit a lot of balls. Occasionally he will play someone who gives him no rhythm & says he doesn't like it.

Great players adjust, true. But the conditions are perfect for him today. And they were perfect for Sampras in the 90s(though they were also perfect for Becker, Ivanisevic)

Everyone likes to have rhythm when play to a degree. Some say it out loud, some don't.

Players are made by the era and condition they are playing in, which is out of their control. To dwell on what this player would be under different sets of condition is useless excercise because one side of the argument is as convincing as the other side when we are talking about the greatest all court talent.
 

TGV

Rookie
Galactus said:
That's something almost no-one picks up on: Federer has feasted on baseliners for the last 4 years.
No Beckers, Rafters, Ivanisevics, Sampras, Krajiceks...it'd be interesting to see how Federer's defensive-chip-off-a-big-1st-serve, would fare against a true serve-and-volleyer coming in..:
Did you watch the 2003 Wimbledon final against Philippoussis who was serve-and-volleying on both serves? Flipper served nearly 70% and still lost in straights. In the second set, he made 0 unforced errors and lost the set 6-2.

Agassi was beating these Stichs, Rafters, Ivanisevics, Krajiceks quite easily. Even Hewitt has a tremendous record against these S-Vers, so I don't see why Fed would struggle.

The fast grass of the 90's built most of these guys' reputation. How many non-Wimbledon slam finals or semis did Ivanisevic and Krajicek make - one? that's about Ginepri level. Stich is about Todd Martin level outside of grass. (He is 0-6 against Agassi). Even Becker -an all-time great - reached 7 out of his 11 slam finals at Wimbledon. He was a netcord away from never winning the USO. The fast grass of Wimbledon and the carpet tourneys enhanced these guys into more than what they were. They would be no better than Ancic today.
 

VGP

Legend
TGV said:
...The fast grass of Wimbledon and the carpet tourneys enhanced these guys into more than what they were....

Isn't this what's called having a fast court game? Just like having a clay court game, hard court game.......
 

Moose Malloy

G.O.A.T.
Flipper served nearly 70% and still lost in straights.

76,62,76 sounds like a close match to me. And this was when the grass had been slowed down. On fast grass of a few years earlier, who knows what would have happened. It showed that a really big server could still S&V on slow grass(too bad Roddick is so talentless...)

Agassi was beating these Stichs, Rafters, Ivanisevics, Krajiceks quite easily.

Agassi lost to Rafter twice at Wimbledon(when the grass was fast)
Krajicek was always a tough opponent for him.

The fast grass of the 90's built most of these guys' reputation. How many non-Wimbledon slam finals or semis did Ivanisevic and Krajicek make - one? that's about Ginepri level. Stich is about Todd Martin level outside of grass. (He is 0-6 against Agassi). Even Becker -an all-time great - reached 7 out of his 11 slam finals at Wimbledon. He was a netcord away from never winning the USO. The fast grass of Wimbledon and the carpet tourneys enhanced these guys into more than what they were. They would be no better than Ancic today.

you started ok, then eventually went completely off the boil. You probably don't deserve a response but:
Krajicek SF at '92 Australian, '93 French(and these are the "slow" slams, right?)
Ivanisevic '96 US Open SF. Many QF's at French & Australian. Remind me when Ginepri wins Wimbledon(or reaches the semis)
Stich, US Open Finalist '94, French Open Finalist '96
Becker-3 time French Open SF, 3 time US Open SF, 2 time Australian Open Champ(& this is a 'slow' slam right?)

LOL at Ancic. Look up my thread on his record in finals against no-names. Yup he sure has displayed some Krajicek, Stich, Goran potential. He'd choke before he got anywhere near a major final on a fast surface.

I hate to think what you think of Mac. He won a ton of titles on carpet.
 

TGV

Rookie
Moose Malloy said:
76,62,76 sounds like a close match to me. And this was when the grass had been slowed down. On fast grass of a few years earlier, who knows what would have happened. It showed that a really big server could still S&V on slow grass(too bad Roddick is so talentless...)
He didn't even have a break point against Fed. So on faster grass, Fed would have breezed thru his service games even more?

Moose Malloy said:
Agassi lost to Rafter twice at Wimbledon(when the grass was fast)
Krajicek was always a tough opponent for him.
In 5-setters whereas he bundled out Rafter in straights in 99 Wimbledon. Krajicek was a tough opponent but yet never beat Agassi on grass?. Agassi was most probably the second best grass player in th 90's.

Moose Malloy said:
I hate to think what you think of Mac. He won a ton of titles on carpet.
Obviously Mac is a legend. It's just tiring to see lightweights like Krajickek, Ivanisevic (in terms of achievements) as being better than Federer, who wins no matter what surface, tournament, opponent, continent. It's like me saying, look how Sampras lost to 5'7" Yzaga and was MP down to Corretja, so he would have much more trouble with Hewitt, Ferrero, Nalbandian etc.
 

Max G.

Legend
TGV said:
Agassi was most probably the second best grass player in th 90's.

Well, I'd go with Ivanisevic in that regard...

Agassi has one Wimbledon win and one final. Ivanisevic has one win and three finals.
 

156MPHserve

Professional
What's the deal with Max Miryni? He's got one of the biggest serve and he's one of the best doubles players so we'd assume he can volley? Being a giant he has enormous reach and should be able to blow powerful groundstrokes. Why's his single's game so poor?
 

Max G.

Legend
156MPHserve said:
What's the deal with Max Miryni? He's got one of the biggest serve and he's one of the best doubles players so we'd assume he can volley? Being a giant he has enormous reach and should be able to blow powerful groundstrokes. Why's his single's game so poor?

Because his return of serve and his groundstrokes are hit and miss, mostly miss.

...and it's not like he's that bad at singles. He's been in the top 20, has won a singles tournament and had a couple of finals including a TMS. A couple more TMS Semis, not sure how many. He's had plenty of upset wins against top players - beat Roddick in '04, Kuerten on clay in '01, he's had wins over Safin and Hewitt and Coria and Sampras as well.

He's at his best indoors - from what I remember, he's got an about even record on outdoor courts, and a significantly better record indoors.

But he's pretty inconsistent - you never know when he'll lose to a lower-ranked player having a good day.
 

Galactus

Banned
Federer vs Serve-and-Volley?
I'll go with Henman's 6 wins to Federer's 4 (and 3 of those were during Henman's gradual decline...just like the court-surface-speeds and ball-composition) :mrgreen:

Henman just as effectively dispatched Federer on fast indoor carpets as Federer did back to Henman on slow-hardcourts...
 

baseliner

Professional
Interesting how a thread on Chang and the Senior tour get's highjacked into one on where Federer stands all time. Chang was a class act, a good ambassador for the game and, until his injury sapped his speed, a feared competitor. I for one miss him.
 

Kaptain Karl

Hall Of Fame
baseliner - I think that's just the way it is.... Some of these people probably don't even remember Chang very well. (The "What's he done lately?" syndrome.)

Roger is "current". People have short memories.

Chang is a good guy. I hope this venture works out well for him and his contemporaries.

- KK
 

The tennis guy

Hall of Fame
Moose Malloy said:
On fast grass of a few years earlier, who knows what would have happened.

Exactly. You don't know what's going to happen to Federer on fast grass!

Moose Malloy said:
You started ok, then eventually went completely off the boil. You probably don't deserve a response but:
Krajicek SF at '92 Australian, '93 French(and these are the "slow" slams, right?)
Ivanisevic '96 US Open SF. Many QF's at French & Australian. Remind me when Ginepri wins Wimbledon(or reaches the semis)
Stich, US Open Finalist '94, French Open Finalist '96
Becker-3 time French Open SF, 3 time US Open SF, 2 time Australian Open Champ(& this is a 'slow' slam right?)

LOL at Ancic. Look up my thread on his record in finals against no-names. Yup he sure has displayed some Krajicek, Stich, Goran potential. He'd choke before he got anywhere near a major final on a fast surface.

The problem with your argument is you only see one side of the story. Yes, there are fewer serve and volleys today, not just because there are few talents. The pace and bounce of courts and balls today are against that type of players. In mid 90s, one third of tournaments were played on fast carpet, today, less than 5. Ancic came on in late 90s and early 00s as a serve and volleyer, however, he has stayed back more and more because there aren't enough tournaments for him to develope his serve and volley game. He might have been a different player if there were more fast carpet tournaments today. Make no mistake, Krajicek and Goran were fast court players who could also play on slow to medium court. Today, there is no chance for that type of players because few fast courts are left. You have to be a medium courts palyer first before anything else today - Federer is doing that by toning down his game, which doesn't help the developement of serve and volleyer.

ATP has realized this. They are trying to gradually put fast carpet back on tour to help revive serve and volley.
 
Top