A look at the best female players never to win the French Open

We have taken a look at the best male players never to win the French Open and now it is time to look at the ladies to never win the tournament. 

Like the men, some of the best female players have failed to win the title, showing once again what a unique surface European clay has proven to be for the very best players in the Open era.

Venus Williams

Venus Williams has played in all four major finals in her career, including the French Open final in 2002. Unfortunately for Venus, she lost to her sister in all four major venues between 2002 and 2003 which must be tough to take, even though Venus handled the losses with great dignity.

Venus has a very good record on clay if not a stellar record at the French Open.  Venus has won 9 clay titles so far in her career and played in 6 other finals.  Venus has won the Italian Open in 1999 and Hamburg twice, plus titles in Warsaw, Acapulco and on the green clay in Charleston. 

However, when it comes to the French Open, like so many other American players, Venus hasn’t found the formula to transcend her aggressive hardcourt game to the slow red clay of Paris.  In recent years Venus has struggled to make an impression, and with every passing year is less likely to be a threat the French Open.

Martina Hingis

Martina Hingis is a player you thought would have been certain to win the French Open before her career was over.  Hingis was finalist in 1997 and 1999 plus semifinalist in 1998 and 2000. 

In 1997 Hingis played in all four major finals, but had a surprising loss in straight sets to Iva Majoli of Croatia, who promptly went on to disappear.  Hingis then went on to lose an infamous final in 1999 to Steffi Graf; when in control with a set and a break, let a suspect line call get to her which changed the whole momentum of the final and got the French crowd on her back, Hingis never recovered from that experience at the French Open. 

Hingis won 7 clay titles including the Italian Open in 1998 and 2006 in her comeback year.  Hingis also won the German Open and Charleston on the green clay in 1999.  Hingis had all the shots to be a great claycourt player, including excellent court craft, skills at the net and vision, all required to be a good clay court player.  Hingis probably lacked that extra bit of speed around the court and didn’t possess a very powerful serve, which made her vulnerable against players with big games.  We tend to think this will be a problem on hardcourts, but it was also a problem for Hingis on clay because players with big shots have even more time to go for their shots.

Having said that, Hingis should have won at least one French Open title.

Kim Clijsters

Another player more known for being a hardcourt specialist, Clijsters has played in two French finals so far in her career, in 2001 and 2003.  In 2001, Clijsters lost an epic final to Jennifer Capriati and then in 2003 lost in straight sets to Justine Henin.  It is fair to say that since Clijsters’ loss to Capriati in 2001, there has not been a final in Paris anywhere near as good.

Clijsters has won 3 clay titles so far in her career including the Italian Open in 2004, Hamburg in 2002 and Warsaw in 2006.  Clijsters also played in the German Open final in 2003, losing to Justine Henin.  Clijsters’ game is based on speed, athleticism and quick strikes which is why her game is tailor made for hardcourts.  But at the same time, athleticism should take you very far on clay so there is no reason why Clijsters couldn’t do better on the clay post 2006 when she got to the semifinals of the French Open.

Clijsters has been denied a couple of times by Justine Henin, one of the greatest claycourt players of the Open era.  Clijsters’ window of winning the French open is closing, and I wonder if she had to chose, whether she would concentrate harder on winning Wimbledon which might suit her game better, especially as Clisjsters heads to retirement from the sport.

Lindsay Davenport

Lindsay Davenport is another hardcourt specialist who failed to win the French Open.  Davenport’s best result came in 1998 where she reached the semifinal, losing to Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.  Davenport also made the quarterfinal in 2005, losing to Mary Pierce.  

Davenport won 8 clay court titles in her career, in fact her first ever title in 1993 was on a claycourt in Switzerland.  Davenport won titles in Strasbourg and Amelia Island on green clay in 1998 and 2004.  Davenport would never win a tier 1 event on European red clay.

Davenport’s style of play is often described as the California big game, which is possessing a big serve and big groundstrokes, Pete Sampras and Venus Williams also played this type of game.  Like the two other players mentioned, Davenport wasn’t afraid to venture to net and had a very good doubles record at grand slam level, like every other female player on this list.  Like many other hardcourt players, Davenport found it difficult to transfer the baseline game from that surface to the clay surface.  This was due to the fact that not only does clay feel different underfoot to hardcourts, but Davenport was not able to practice first strike tennis as easily.  Davenport’s lack of mobility was also a problem on the clay as you have to do a lot of running, and to win 7 matches that way was probably asking too much of Davenport. 

Conchita Martinez

Conchita Martinez is the ultimate claycourt specialist who didn’t win the French Open.  In fact, Martinez played one final only, losing to Mary Pierce in straight sets in 2000. 

Martinez won over 15 claycourt titles in her career including the German Open in 1998 and the Italian Open four times in a row from 1993 to 1996 which is a record. Martinez also won her fair share of hardcourt titles and a very respectable 33 titles overall.  Martinez’ most incredible achievement  is her Wimbledon title which she won in 1994 defeating Martina Navratilova in the final in 3 sets.  Martinez is the only Spanish female player to win Wimbledon, made more remarkable by the fact that she was very much the clay court specialist.  Martinez also played in the Australian Open final in 1998, losing to Martina Hingis.

Martinez had a western grip on the forehand side and generated an incredible amount of topspin on her forehands and backhands.  Martinez also employed the slice backhand, and due to a very good doubles record, had good hands at net.  Martinez didn’t have a very powerful serve; therefore she was always vulnerable to the very best players in the world and had a losing record to many top players including Graf, Seles and Mary Pierce.

This might explain why Martinez was unable to win the French Open, some of the greatest players of the Open era dominated the French Open in the 1990s, namely Steffi Graf, Monica Seles and Arantxa Sanchez Vicario.

Gabriela Sabatini

Gabriela Sabatini won a major title at the US Open on hardcourt in 1990.  In that final Sabatini defeated Steffi Graf in straight sets in a very impressive performance.  Sabatini had a game that was well suited to the clay surface and would have expected to have done better at Roland Garros.

Sabatini won 22 titles in her career including 11 on clay.  Sabatini won the Italian Open on four occasions in 1988, 1989, 1991 and 1992.  Sabatini also won Amelia Island on green clay in 1988, 1991 and 1992.  Sabatini reached the semifinal of the French Open on five occasions in 1985 as a 15 year old, 1987, 1988, 1991 and 1993.  In the 1993 semifnal, Sabatini held a 6-1 5-1 lead against Mary Joe Fernandez and even had five matchpoints, but went on to lose 10-8 in the 3rd set.  Sabatini never really recovered her confidence after that experience.

Sabatini had a similar game to Conchita Martinez, which was based around a lot of topspin on both her forehand and backhand.  Sabatini had a suspect serve and 2nd serve in particular; this probably prevented her from winning more major titles and at least making one French Open final.

Others

Dinara Safina and Elena Dementieva are not considered great players, but were probably the two best players of recent years not to win the French Open. 

A Look at the best players never to win the French Open

With the clay season underway and Roland Garros coming up, it will be interesting to look at the best players never to win the title there.

The French Open has proven to be the most challenging for some of the greatest players of the Open era.  In previous decades, the conditions on the clay were far removed from the rest of the tour.  This is reflected by the fact that it was virtually impossible for an attacking player to win the tournament. Not only attacking players were shut out, some of the best baseliners failed to win there, as playing on clay is a different challenge to playing from the baseline on hardcourts.

Stefan Edberg

Stefan Edberg is considered by many to be the finest attacking player of the last 25 years.  Edberg had fantastic volley skills and razor sharp reflexes, smooth movement and a top class kick serve.  From the backcourt, Edberg had one of the best one hand backhands of the Open era, which he used to hit with topspin or slice, or chip charge on return of serve. 

Edberg won 42 tournaments in his career including 6 Grand Slam titles, two at Wimbledon, two at the Australian Open and two at the US Open.  Edberg won his two Australian Opens on grass in 1985 and 1987.  He also got to the final 3 more times when it was played on rebound ace, losing to Ivan Lendl and Jim Courier twice.  Edberg along with John McEnroe reached number 1 in singles and doubles between 1986 and 1987, a very rare achievement.  Edberg is also one of a handful of players in the open era to play at all four major finals.  Edberg won clay tournaments at Hamburg (then equivalent of a Masters 1000) and in Stockholm.

Edberg got to the final of the French Open in 1989 against Michael Chang where he held a two sets to one lead, but was unable to finish the job and lost in 5 sets.  That would be the closest Edberg would get to winning the French Open.  A great achievement considering Edberg was primarily an attacking player who preferred to come in than stay back and rally.  Attacking tennis on clay can be successful but you really have to be careful which short ball to attack.  Had Edberg won, he would have been included in the conversation of the greatest. 

Boris Becker

Boris Becker is a contemporary of Stefan and had a similar career and style of play.  Becker won 49 titles and 6 Grand Slam titles, winning Wimbledon three times, the Australian Open twice and US Open once.  Becker was one of the first players along with Ivan Lendl to bring power tennis to a new level in the 1980s. 

Becker broke through very early to win his first Wimbledon title aged just 17.  Becker would win most of his titles before the age of 21.  Even though Becker’s contemporaries in age would be Andre Agassi, Jim Courier, Pete Sampras, Thomas Muster and Michael Stich, Becker is more or less associated with Ivan Lendl, John McEnroe and Mats Wilander and of course Stefan Edberg.   Becker’s strengths were his fantastic serve, athleticism, great one hand backhand return and diving volleys, especially on grass!  Becker wasn’t the quickest mover due to his size at 6 ft 4 but definitely one of the most athletic.

At Roland Garros, Becker got to the semifinal on three occasions in 1987, 1989 and 1991.  In 1989 he lost to Stefan Edberg and in 1991 lost to Andre Agassi.  Becker more or less preferred to stay back on the clay and rally much more than he would on grass.  But during that era, the clay was slower and balls were heavier so it was difficult for an attack minded player like Becker to win 7 matches from the baseline. Unfortunately for Becker, he played in quite a few clay finals including Monte Carlo and the Italian Open, but never won a claycourt event despite winning 49 titles.

Pete Sampras

Pete Sampras had a rather strange record at Roland Garros.  He was a semifinalist on one occasion in 1996 and three times a quarterfinalist between 1992 and 1994.  On clay overall Sampras has a decent record but not an exceptional one.

Sampras won three clay titles overall, the biggest being the Italian Open in 1994 where he defeated Boris Becker in straight sets (best of 5).  Sampras also won Kitzbuhel in Austria in 1992 and on green clay in Atlanta in 1998.  Sampras’ biggest achievement on clay was the Davis cup in 1995 when he won all of his rubbers on extremely slow watered clay against the Russians in Moscow, designed to put Sampras off his game.
Sampras’ talent on other surfaces is unquestioned but for some reason on clay never got it together. 

In his early years, he looked like he could do something at Roland Garros but after the semifinal loss in 1996 seemed to give up mentally on the surface as his results clearly indicate.  In the early to mid 1990s Sampras beat Thomas Muster, Sergei Brugera, Jim Courier and a young Marcelo Rios at Roland Garros but couldn’t win 7 matches.  Like Becker, Sampras was not able to win 7 matches primarily playing baseline tennis.  On hardcourts Sampras could mix up baseline with attacking play but on clay the percentage demands more baseline than attack.

However you look at it, with Sampras’ talent, he should have done much better at Roland Garros.

John McEnroe

John McEnroe is remembered for one final at Roland Garros, the 1984 final where he held a two sets lead against Ivan Lendl and lost in 5 sets.  That was Lendl’s first major title after losing his first 4 finals; and although McEnroe would beat Lendl in the 1984 US Open final, McEnroe would never get another opportunity to win Roland Garros.

Along with Stefan Edberg on this list, McEnroe is the most attack minded player here, he didn’t really change his game much for the clay, he was still chipping and charging like on hardcourts.  McEnroe won 4 clay tournaments in his career, but all of his titles came in the United States on the green clay and not European red clay.  Green clay plays a little faster and feels different underfoot, hardcourt players usually like the green clay surface.

Had McEnroe being able to win the 1984 French Open, it may have paved the way for other pure serve volleyers to win in later years. 

Jimmy Connors

Jimmy Connors has the distinction of being the only player who won a title on three different surfaces at the US Open.  He won the title on grass in 1974, green clay in 1976 and hardcourts in 1978, 1982 and 1983.  Jimmy Connors was also a runner up on green clay in 1975 and 1977.  However, Connors never made it to the final of the French Open despite being a semifinalist on many occasions.

In fact, Connors was banned from being able to participate in the French Open in 1974 because he signed up to play World Team Tennis which the ATP and ITF did not recognise, Connors filed lawsuits but they were later dropped.  Connors made the semifinals of the French Open in 1979, 1980, 1984 and 1985, Connors also made four quarterfinals so a very respectable record.

Like John McEnroe, Connors won many clay titles in the United States on the green clay.  During the mid 1970s, many tournaments were played on green clay as part of the build up to the US Open including Cincinnati and Indianapolis.  Connors would never win a title on European red clay although in 1981 he got to the final of Monte Carlo but the final was annulled due to bad weather.  Connors did win a tournament in Paraguay but it is not recognised on the ATP tour.  Connors found like so many others, that transferring a hardcourt game with fairly flat strokes to the European clay was very difficult during that era.

Others

Other top class players and former number 1 players to not make an impression include Lleyton Hewitt, Marat Safin and Marcelo Rios.  Attacking players who made good runs include Michael Stich who lost the 1996 final to Kafelnikov, Richard Krajicek and Pat Rafter.

Jo Wilfried Tsonga - Currently Underachieving

Jo Wilfried Tsonga is one of the more talented players on the ATP tour.  He plays a game people love to watch, full of energy, enthusiasm and displays a big smile when he pulls off a great shot or dive.  However, the feeling is that Tsonga is headed in the same direction as so many other French players of the past 30 years – underachievement.

I first saw Tsonga play in the 3rd rd of Wimbledon in 2007 when he comprehensively beat Feliciano Lopez of Spain in three sets.  At the end of the match, the Spanish fans nodded approvingly, they knew their man had been well beaten.  I thought I saw a player who could be a future slam champion.  Six months later in January 2008, Tsonga would have an incredible run to the final of the Australian Open, taking the first set before going down in 4 sets to Novak Djokovic. 

2008 proved to be a good year for Tsonga; he finished top 8 in the world and played in the World Tour Finals in Shanghai.  Tsonga also won his first masters title in Paris Bercy defeating David Nalbandian in the final.  Tsonga also had a good 2011, getting to the final of Queens and pushing Roger Federer to three sets in the World Tour final in London.  Tsonga also came from two sets down to beat Federer in Wimbledon quarterfinal, and won events in Metz and Vienna.  However, despite injuries hampering his progress, Tsonga’s results have proved inconsistent.

There have been many talented French players who have not realised their potential.  In the 1980s, Henri LeConte was as talented as any other player on the tour during that era.  However, LeConte only made the final of the French Open in 1988, which he lost to Mats Wilander in straight sets. In the 1990s, Cedric Pioline made it to two major finals, but each time lost to Pete Sampras at the US Open and at Wimbledon. 

In more recent times players such as Sebastien Grosjean, Gael Monfils and Richard Gasquet have all displayed superior shotmaking and athleticism, especially in Monfils’ case, but none of these players have made it to a Grand Slam final.  Grosjean played in semifinals in France, Australia and Wimbledon, Monfils at the French and Gasquet at Wimbledon.

Tsonga has beaten all of the top players in the world at Masters or Grand Slam level.  What Tsonga has not shown so far is a consistency of performance that is required to become a champion.  That is linked to poor shot selection, as Tsonga doesn’t always choose the right shot or when to use the shots he has.  Tsonga has the courage to go for his shots, which is very admirable, but to become a champion Tsonga must figure out when to use the shots he has to hurt the opponent.  

In 2011, Tsonga parted company with long term coach Éric Winogradsky. It was reported that there was a difference of opinion in how the coach wanted Tsonga to play and how Tsonga wanted to approach the game.  Tsonga plays a game that doesn’t always have a definite game plan.  A lot of people would think that Roger Federer plays how he wants on the court but Federer has a definite gameplan, which is to get the forehand into play as often as possible and stretch his opponent with the backhand down the line whenever possible.  

Tsonga is not afraid to get to net but on slower courts, Tsonga needs to be patient and choose the right short balls to attack.  Tsonga also has to work on improving his backhand, which is a slight liability.  Tsonga likes to go for flashy one hand backhands which look spectacular but give the impression of a showman.

Tsonga could look to fellow French player Amelie Mauresmo for inspiration as Mauresmo was also seen as a talented underachiever. In 2005, Mauresmo won the WTA championships which gave her the confidence to win two major titles in 2006 including Wimbledon.  Tsonga needs the spark of a big win against a big player in a final, the 2011 ATP world tour final in London could have been the moment. 

However, at the age of 27, Tsonga has a three year window to claim a major title.  It is very rare for a player over the age of 28 to win a maiden major title but Tsonga has the talent to do it.  Petra Korda and Goran Ivanisevic are the only two players in recent times to pull off that feat.

Can There Really Be One Greatest?

The past few years has seen a real intensification of the debate as to who is the greatest tennis player of all time. The most recent activity has seen a countdown of the 100 greatest players of all time, men and women from 100 to 1, taking into account pre and post Open era players.


It is an interesting concept but I can’t help but think it is a rather fruitless exercise perpetuated in the media in it’s quest to claim the one player the greatest of all time or “GOAT” as it has become known on internet speak the last 5 years. In the latest countdown, Roger Federer was acclaimed as the greatest player of all time. Steffi Graf came in at number 2; the top 5 was rounded off with Rod Laver, Martina Navratilova and Pete Sampras. Rather interestingly, Rafael Nadal came in at number 6. Mixing male and female players is always a dangerous thing to do, simply because if this countdown is based on achievements, then Steffi Graf or Martina Navratilova should be number 1.


For instance, Steffi Graf won each major tournament at least 4 times, won the Golden slam, held all four major titles at the same time twice, spent 377 consecutive weeks at number 1, won major doubles titles and won well over 100 titles. Graf also held winning records over virtually all of her rivals including Monica Seles. The fact that Graf opponents’ were women shouldn’t detract from her achievements which easily far outweigh Roger Federer’s.


This is particularly what makes the greatest discussion fraught with dangers as it is just too subjective for there to be any definitive guide as to who really is the greatest tennis player of all time. The “greatest” is also a very fluid word in sport and tennis in particular. In fact, there seems to be a “greatest” tennis player every five years; especially in the age of the internet.


Since I’ve been following the sport, Bjorn Borg was considered the greatest, then John McEnroe for a few years, then Ivan Lendl, Pete Sampras and now Roger Federer. Many people and pundits already consider Rafael Nadal to be the greatest or set to take over as the greatest, especially as Federer has not beaten Nadal at a major tournament since 2007 and has only beaten Nadal at Wimbledon.


In five years time, Novak Djokovic will be highly likely considered to be the greatest if he keeps winning major titles. As far as the women go, some have argued for Serena Williams being the greatest because they reckon the competition in the early to mid 2000s was at the peak with opponents like Venus Williams, Lindsay Davenport, Jennifer Capriati, Martina Hingis, Clijsters and Henin.


If statistical criteria is the key, then Serena’s case is non existent as her numbers are nowhere near the likes of Graf, Navratilova and Chris Evert or Margaret Court. Also, should major titles be the only guide as to who is seen as the greatest?


Whatever way you look at it, either as a bit of fun or deadly serious, the debate as to who is the greatest continually attracts column inches by eager journalists, internet forums and social media all over the world. One thing can be guaranteed, the list of who is the greatest and in what order they should come will always be subjective and in any case is sure to change in 5 years time when there will be a new debate as to who is the “latest” greatest player of all time.


If the greatest player of all time cannot stand up to the test over a 5 year period, then it really is a pointless exercise to claim one player as the greatest of all time above all other greats.

Indoor Tennis Surface Speeds - Dilemma for ATP & WTA

The winter indoor season has just ended in Europe and the United States. However, the prestige of the indoor season seems to have diminished over the last 5 to 10 years. Indoor tennis used to have a characteristic all of its own, and in many ways it still does, but there are not as many tournaments as before and the surface used indoors is no longer distinct from the rest of tour.

That is because for many years, indoor tennis was played primarily on a carpet surface (not carpet as we know it obviously!). Tennis was played on either Supreme or Taraflex. Some of the most prestigious tournaments took place on carpet; the Masters Championships in New York was played on Supreme throughout the 1980s. The ATP World Championships in Germany was played on Taraflex from 1990 to 1996. The WTA Masters was held in New York on Supreme up to the year 2000.

However, carpet as an official surface has been phased out completely since 2008 and there are now no carpet events on the ATP or WTA tour. They have been replaced with either an indoor hardcourt or plexipave. This is a culmination of changes the authorities have made to slow the game down as they see it. But what it also means that we get the same type of tennis all year round, regardless of surface and conditions, diversity has gone out of the window in professional tennis.

The diminishing in importance of indoor tennis is reflected by the introduction in the calendar of outdoor hardcourt events during February in Doha and Dubai since 2001, which while not carrying a huge amount of points, attract the best players due to the weather and the money on offer. With these events held in February before Indian Wells and Miami, the Hardcourt season seems now to be extended from the Australian season right the way to April and the clay court season.

This is interesting because there has always been talk that playing too much hardcourt tennis is punishing on the joints for athletes, and yet hardcourt tennis is now played around 9 months of the year (not including the clay and grass court season). This is hardly conducive to limiting injuries of the top players, especially with the grinding style of play so many players adopt, and the medium paced courts mean it is harder to put the ball away for winners.

Players now play the same game regardless of conditions. It used to be the case that women played their game regardless of surface, and the men played different tactics depending on surface. However, this is no longer the case for the men and the result is that the volley is no longer a viable tactic in the game and younger players are being coached only to come to net on a sure thing. Jim Courier was interviewed on BBC radio in 2005 during Wimbledon and he attributed the demise of attacking tennis and net play to the demise of faster indoor surfaces on the tour.

I recently contacted a spokesman for the ATP based in Florida. He said that “medium paced surfaces is fairer for everybody as you have more rallies because of the style of play today”. I asked him if hardcourts were more punishing on the body, he pointed out that carpet had caused serious injuries as well and it didn’t necessarily follow that hardcourts were more punishing, he noted Alexander Chesnekov suffered a serious injury one year in Philadelphia playing on carpet “you may have cement rolled over the boards, not necessarily the case that carpet is less punishing on the body.” The ATP spokesman pointed out there were complaints that tennis was too fast, there were not enough rallies and many players favoured a change to a more acrylic surface.

That’s fair enough as the authorities have to act as they see fit. However, it gave me the impression that tennis from the past was somehow devalued. Indoor tennis was not all about big serves and no rallies during that era, some of the greatest baseline and clay specialists were great indoor players as well. Ivan Lendl, who won 28 claycourt events, also won 33 indoor events and is seen as one of the five best indoor players of the open era. Lendl won the year end Masters Championships on 5 occasions, overcoming incredible serve and volleyers often such as John McEnroe, Boris Becker and Stefan Edberg. Other great indoor players included Jimmy Connors, Bjorn Bjorg, Lindsay Davenport, Monica Seles and Martina Hingis – all great baseline players.

During the 1990s, Andre Agassi won the ATP Championships in 1990 defeating Boris Becker in the semifinal and Stefan Edberg in the final. Jim Courier was losing finalist in 1991 and 1992 while, Michael Chang made the final in 1995 defeating Sampras in the semifinal before losing to Becker in the final, Yvegeny Kafelnikov lost to Sampras in the final in 1997. Alex Corretja defeated Sampras in the semi and Carlos Moya in the final in 1998. This clearly indicates that attacking players and baseliners had a chance on carpet and then plexicushion during the 1990s. One of the greatest matches of the open era took place in the 1996 ATP final between Pete Sampras and Boris Becker. A match which lasted over 4 hours and was full of high quality tennis, great net play and great baseline rallies – all court tennis in the purest form.

I decided to get an ex player’s perspective who is now in administration. Richard Krajicek won Wimbledon in 1996 and 17 tournaments on the ATP tour, including titles on all surfaces. Krajicek had a great serve but was also a good mover across the baseline for a tall man, and of course a great volleyer.

You are the Tournament Director of ABN AMRO World Tennis Tournament, was the event always held on an indoor hardcourt?

“It was played on Supreme Court and now on wood painted with Plexipave ( similar to Hardcourt)”

What in your opinion is the difference between playing on indoor carpet and indoor hardcourt? What are the advantages and disadvantages?

“I only see advantages to Hardcourt. 1. you can control the speed of the court (you can make it a slow, medium or fast court).
The rallies are longer, but if you adjust the speed of the court, to the speed of the balls, it will be an honest surface to both attacking and defensive players)”

I spoke to an ATP spokesman and he believes introducing medium surfaces indoors has slowed tennis down and made for more rallies and more of a spectacle, I believe it has reduced the volley as a viable tactic. How do you view the situation and the demise of attacking tennis?

“I believe slowing down the courts has created more rallies, but I do not believe it has made players stay back because of it. It is just the way players play.
Even on grass everybody plays from the back. Mardy Fish is one of the few exceptions in the top 10.”

During your career, your game was based on fast court play, did you enjoy playing on indoor carpet surfaces and would you like to see carpet re-introduced to some events?

"The speed is good at most events. But the combination of ball and court is important. If you have a heavy ball and a slow court, then play might be slowed down too much.
And same if you have a very light ball and a quick court, then the rallies will be too short and that is no fun either."

As Richard Krajicek said, surface speeds should be fair for all of the players. At the moment current conditions favour the counterpunchers too much; this is reflected in the fact that indoor surfaces mimic the pace of outdoor surfaces. For some years now the number 1 player in both the ATP and WTA tour have been grinding baseline players who have many qualities, but lack flair, imagination and extra skill. One way to bring flair and imagination back into tennis is to reconsider speeding up indoor courts to encourage net play and improvisation, at the moment almost a lost art at the highest level. Long, attritutional 6 hour matches in major finals is not the long term solution for tennis. The authorities should consider bringing diversity back into the game.