Good interview with Ferrero, coach of Carlos Alcaraz
This first excerpt is interesting to me, in part because of its contrast with a quote by Mats Wilander that "Alcaraz has more choice than anyone since Federer." As one commenter elsewhere put it, "Ferrero still hasn't gotten over the Big 3 taking away his career" <g>.
Excerpt: What’s impressive with Carlos' game identity is that he creates a lot of uncertainty, because he can do so many things. You know Federer’s patterns. You know Nadal’s patterns. You know Djokovic’s patterns. Honestly, you can’t really say that with Carlos.
Juan Carlos Ferrero: I agree with that. It’s so good to have that and it can also be so bad, because it’s a trap. When he was younger, he used all his options but not in the right order. It was a mix. At this time, I could say something very precise to Carlos but I had no idea about what would happen next on the court. It’s difficult to play with the right order when you have these tools. Being more mature now, more experienced, it seems that he put it together.
~~~~~
Then, there is this about how Alcaraz changed his game radically to beat Medvedev:
When we see Carlos Alcaraz play, we feel that you had a clear vision of where to bring his tennis to be some steps ahead of the others. Do you agree?
Juan Carlos Ferrero: I don’t know. Let’s say that the first thing I saw was Carlos’ game and how he could be adapted. It’s very difficult to find a player to whom you can tell to play in very different ways, and then he does it. Example: to beat Daniil Medvedev in the Indian Wells final, we made a plan, and this plan was not normally a plan Carlos has all the time. It was kind of similar, but not same. Carlos was able to execute it and prevail. One of the greatest things I remember about him happened when he was 15, when he practised with players that were much better than him, like Dominic Thiem in Rio de Janeiro. He adapted his speed to Thiem’s speed, which was much faster than he normally hit. I felt before it was one of his assets, but then you could see it. Very few can do that.
This first excerpt is interesting to me, in part because of its contrast with a quote by Mats Wilander that "Alcaraz has more choice than anyone since Federer." As one commenter elsewhere put it, "Ferrero still hasn't gotten over the Big 3 taking away his career" <g>.
Excerpt: What’s impressive with Carlos' game identity is that he creates a lot of uncertainty, because he can do so many things. You know Federer’s patterns. You know Nadal’s patterns. You know Djokovic’s patterns. Honestly, you can’t really say that with Carlos.
Juan Carlos Ferrero: I agree with that. It’s so good to have that and it can also be so bad, because it’s a trap. When he was younger, he used all his options but not in the right order. It was a mix. At this time, I could say something very precise to Carlos but I had no idea about what would happen next on the court. It’s difficult to play with the right order when you have these tools. Being more mature now, more experienced, it seems that he put it together.
~~~~~
Then, there is this about how Alcaraz changed his game radically to beat Medvedev:
When we see Carlos Alcaraz play, we feel that you had a clear vision of where to bring his tennis to be some steps ahead of the others. Do you agree?
Juan Carlos Ferrero: I don’t know. Let’s say that the first thing I saw was Carlos’ game and how he could be adapted. It’s very difficult to find a player to whom you can tell to play in very different ways, and then he does it. Example: to beat Daniil Medvedev in the Indian Wells final, we made a plan, and this plan was not normally a plan Carlos has all the time. It was kind of similar, but not same. Carlos was able to execute it and prevail. One of the greatest things I remember about him happened when he was 15, when he practised with players that were much better than him, like Dominic Thiem in Rio de Janeiro. He adapted his speed to Thiem’s speed, which was much faster than he normally hit. I felt before it was one of his assets, but then you could see it. Very few can do that.
Comment