Originally Posted by Ash86
Have to laugh at Roger fans presenting this as him caring for the game! He's benefited from the slower courts throughout his career - far easier for him to rack up all those Wimbledons and US Opens in an era which didn't favour big servers than in the 90s. It's only now that Djokovic, Murray etc. have a clear advantage over him on those courts and he's a step slower that he has spoken about this issue - he's been on tour 14+ years, is in his 30s - speaking about it isn't showing leadership, it's pure self interest.
Also, apart from minorities of vocal fans on messageboards the vast majority of the public don't seem to have an issue with the court speed. Tennis is far more popular now than in late 90s - the top stars get great coverage, top events sell out etc. I'd be happy to see more variety but the idea that all courts are the same is a nonsense anyway. If they were we'd see the likes of Almagro picking up 250 hardcourt/indoor titles rather than only winning on clay and vice versa for those with terrible clay records. If the hard courts are a little slower it's also true that the clay is a little faster.
So it's great for Federer to talk about the top guys being "protected" but it might have meant more if he'd wanted any change when it would have been adverse to him.
No doubt Nadal, Djokovic and Murray will disagree and why wouldn't they - they'll all favour the type of court that helps them.
You're missing the point that many courts have got slower since
Federer's prime, which may explain why he didn't make this point then. Had courts been faster, I struggle to think which big servers would have stopped him winning slams. Roddick? Karlovic? Peak Federer's ability to return big serves was uncanny whatever the surface speed.