There’s plenty of rubbish fan theories floating around on sport, so when you actually hear a professional player divulge a genuine opinion you sit up and take notice.
In a nutshell, 35-year-old Swiss maestro Roger Federer says the courts at the Australian Open are as fast as they have been since the Plexicushion surface replaced Rebound Ace in 2008.
There’s no official word from Tennis Australia that anything has changed with the surface, but if Roger says Rod Laver Arena is faster, it’s definitely faster.
Federer was one player who despised the change to Plexicushion from the start.
He realised his success was based on a fast court that allowed him to dictate the points. When the tennis court was slowed down it gave the baseline guys a much better chance of staying in the rallies and slugging it out.
“Everything is already slowing down. Everybody’s already complaining that, you know, we’re playing too much from the baseline. So we’ll only see more of that here in Australia, that’s for sure,” he said in 2009.
Fast forward to 2017 and Federer amazed even himself how far he has made it in the tournament.
After witnessing the other unexpected results during the tournament, including Mischa Zverev defeating Andy Murray and Venus Williams’ resurgence, Federer is convinced the surface is a contributing factor.
“If you look at Venus, she loves the fast courts. She always has. I think it just is natural for her to play well on this surface because maybe there’s less thinking going on, you just play with instinct,” Federer said.
“The conditions have allowed me to play forward and I thought Mischa (Zverev) did a terrific job this tournament and I hope it’s going to inspire more players to do that in the future,” Federer added.
Federer’s theory that older players are used to the fast conditions makes sense.
Those aged over 30 grew up on fast courts and had standard tennis balls to deal with rather than the three different types introduced in 2002, designed to slow the game down.
Think about how the game has changed, even in the last 20 years.
Pat Rafter and Greg Rusedski’s serve/volley games worked wonders at Wimbledon and Pete Sampras was almost unstoppable when he had his serve going.
A big serve still helps, but it’s not crucial anymore as players have up to 10 per cent longer to react.
As Federer has mentioned before, he’s had to adapt his game for the slow-down of tennis.
However, this year the fast conditions make him feel like he’s back to 2007 when he dominated at the Australian Open and that’s bad news for Stan Wawrinka and every other player remaining in the men’s draw.
anon1
Guest
I think Friday night proved what I have been saying. Courts didn't look too fast at all. Night conditions simply do not suit Nadal. Couldn't get any really penetration of pop going from his forehand. At one stage in the final set, Dimitrov was completely dominating Nadal in the 'winners' count. Nadal was getting no real bounce or benefit from his heavy forehand in those cool conditions. Also, Dimitrov's backhand was generally really solid -- unlike how Federer's backhand usually is against Nadal.
lopi
Guest
Instead of slowing down the balls and courts to give smaller players a chance they should have abandoned the second serve. That's the main reason I stopped watching Tennis. I hate a game that is all about the serve and being tall. It's just boring. Pete Sampras was the worst to watch. Serve - volley - point. Repeat 3 times. Game won. But baseline marathons are boring too. I'd be interested if it's fast and one serve only.
Spur
Guest
Nadal injured himself in that final and played the match on one leg.
anon
Roar Pro
"Rafa is far more blunted by low bouncing courts than he is by fast courts." Agreed. It helps big servers like Federer who get a lot of cheap points off of serves. "These courts are quick but they also bounce and take the spin, so it’s no wonder Fed and Rafa have done well here." I don't think the courts are that quick. Not as quick and higher bouncing than the American hard courts (where Nadal has had most of his hardcourt success). Plus Nadal has played almost all his matches at night when conditions are much slower. "A night match suits rafa better as the balls will fluff more in the cooler conditions – but there is still plenty of pace for federer to work with should rafa get through dimitrov." No, just no. Completely wrong. The last thing Nadal wants are fluffy balls because he can't hit through the ball with that heavy forehand. In cool conditions, the ball is slower and lower bouncing. Exactly what Nadal doesn't want.
Rory
Guest
Don't think the point was that fast courts suit Nadal. He's obviously good enough to win on a variety of surfaces, which doesn't make Federer's theory wrong.
Bandy
Roar Guru
Contrary to everyone's belief that fast courts don't suit Nadal - that is rubbish. Far more a factor is how the court takes spin and how high it bounces. Contrary to another belief, Rafa's grips are not that extreme, his forehand is semi-western, so he is more than prepared to handle fast courts. Rafa is far more blunted by low bouncing courts than he is by fast courts. The bounce at this years AO is good for him, it takes the spin well as Serena's coach said at the start of the summer. These courts are quick but they also bounce and take the spin, so it's no wonder Fed and Rafa have done well here. A night match suits rafa better as the balls will fluff more in the cooler conditions - but there is still plenty of pace for federer to work with should rafa get through dimitrov.
Brian
Guest
Thats a good point you would have expected raonic to have done better against nadal on a faster court. Still nadal has won wimbledon twice
anon
Roar Pro
These "experts" can't keep their stories straight. Fast courts apparently suit an aging, less mobile, slower Nadal. I think I have heard it all now. If fast courts suit Nadal, then surely we have to start writing off Nadal's chances of winning the French Open since it's by far the slowest surface of the four majors. And the fact is Murray has won his three majors on the two fastest surfaces (2 Wimbledon, 1 US Open). Murray has never made a French Open Final. If faster courts suit Nadal, then maybe Nadal has been robbed of potentially more majors. Maybe he would have won 20+ if they game hadn't been artificially slowed down.
anon
Roar Pro
Except that Wawrinka ran through Nadal in the 2014 AO Final. Wawrinka has a better backhand than Federer. Federer's backhand is a genuine weakness that a great player can prey on.
Pedro
Roar Rookie
His spin to rogers backhand makes the ball bounce very high and it is hard to counter with a one handed backhand, Nadal also is very very very mentally tough and is prepared to scrap it out for 5 sets every time.
Mark Anderson
Guest
Then why has Nadal done so well?