PDA

View Full Version : Roger And Tony Roche End Coaching Relationship


asitkin
05-12-2007, 11:15 AM
http://www.rogerfederer.com

Roger and Tony Roche have mutually decided to end their 2 1/2 year long part time coaching arrangement. "I thank Tony very much for his efforts over these last years, during which I appreciated the 12-15 weeks per season we would work together. I am also grateful for the sacrifice he made, traveling so far from his home in Australia and leaving his family."


Way...

TLM_01
05-12-2007, 11:19 AM
wow...
10 characters

Eviscerator
05-12-2007, 11:22 AM
A mistake in my mind assuming Roche could have continued to coach him part time.

catspaw
05-12-2007, 11:31 AM
Well, something's definitely not been right these last few months. Perhaps they've had a crucial disagreement about tactics, in which case nothing to do but split....

rfprse
05-12-2007, 11:35 AM
It's surprising that Federer made this decision middle of the season.
However, it's about time....rather, a little late.
I thought he should have made this move at least at the end of the last year. (when Cahill became available)

Zaragoza
05-12-2007, 11:41 AM
This proves that his recent losses were not meaningless like some fans claimed, those losses were important. He knows his game isn´t working, he is disappointed and he needs fresh air. I never expected that a loss to Volandri would be the last match of Roche as Federer´s coach.

127mph
05-12-2007, 11:55 AM
www.rogerfederer.com

federer is gonna call up Cahill!!!

127mph
05-12-2007, 11:57 AM
Call up Cahill!!

psamp14
05-12-2007, 11:59 AM
splitting with roche is not a bad move on federer's part...maybe he just wants a fresh start

i dont know who he will go to for a coach, since he did win 3 slams in 2004 without a coach

BigboyDan
05-12-2007, 12:03 PM
"Fire the Coach", the same in all sports...

goforgold99
05-12-2007, 12:04 PM
Wow!

Don't know what to think about that...

Jonnyf
05-12-2007, 12:09 PM
splitting with roche is not a bad move on federer's part...maybe he just wants a fresh start

i dont know who he will go to for a coach, since he did win 3 slams in 2004 without a coach

IMO there's two specific coaches he should look to.
a) someone to help him further his volleys (like woodforde has been doing with djokovic) or
b) Another coach who specialised on clay and who can help him get at Nadal and hopefully for him get a FO

Heavy Metal Tennis Star
05-12-2007, 12:14 PM
Peter Lundgren Again Roger!!!!

goforgold99
05-12-2007, 12:20 PM
Maybe he'll play the rest of the season without a coach, like he did in 2004. Seems to work for him..

Eviscerator
05-12-2007, 12:24 PM
splitting with roche is not a bad move on federer's part...maybe he just wants a fresh start

i dont know who he will go to for a coach, since he did win 3 slams in 2004 without a coach

It may or may not work out, only time will tell. Certainly Federer is talented enough to get by without a coach until he finds a replacement.
However the "fresh start" aspect is just a cliche because other pros who have wanted a fresh start while at #1 or the top of their games have had pretty poor results after parting ways with their coaches.

Jonnyf
05-12-2007, 12:27 PM
Peter Lundgren Again Roger!!!!


Working with the LTA for davis cup so no chance

RedWeb
05-12-2007, 12:28 PM
Mirka is next... then partying with Safin.

ATXtennisaddict
05-12-2007, 12:33 PM
well, it finally happened.

Kobble
05-12-2007, 12:36 PM
Hire Miloslav Mecir.

Mick
05-12-2007, 12:39 PM
haha. here's Mats Wilander's opportunity-- he can help Federer will those big balls that he spoke about in the interview :D

asitkin
05-12-2007, 12:45 PM
Not so sure that it’s Roger’s decision. He is not looking for more coach time. They spent plenty recently without much of success. Seems Tony’s main recipe is hard work and dedication but probably modeling and socializing don’t left much time for something else. Serena comes to mind, she liked it too. Tony has seen a lot and doesn’t need to waste his time.

TheNatural
05-12-2007, 12:51 PM
so 4 slams pre-Roche, 6 slams with Roche, now lets see how many slams post-Roche.

AndrewD
05-12-2007, 12:53 PM
Tony Roche has said that, as he was spending more weeks with Federer leading up to this French Open, he wouldn't be available to spend any more time with him during the year. That being the case (plus a few losses), it really isn't surprising that they've stopped working together.

I also think people overestimate what Roche has been doing for/with Federer. It hasn't been coaching in the way we usually see it but more along the lines of a supervisory role where he keeps on eye on what Fed is doing and making sure he isn't slipping into any bad habits. Problem with that is, while it hasn't caused Federer to fall backwards, it hasn't pushed him forward. Now, with new players coming through and older ones improving, he can't afford to stagnate.

Mick
05-12-2007, 12:55 PM
roche is pretty old. I think it would be good for Federer to pick someone younger (like 50 or less)

Tennis_Monk
05-12-2007, 12:55 PM
Send in your resume's. He might hire someone who is also looking for a FRESH start.

FedFan_2007
05-12-2007, 12:57 PM
Fed needs to deconstruct himself, his ego and rediscover the inner fire. This isn't about technical things, but about desire.

ACE of Hearts
05-12-2007, 01:02 PM
Hire freaking Wilander if u have the balls Roger,LMAO.

slice bh compliment
05-12-2007, 01:08 PM
Hire freaking Wilander if u have the balls Roger,LMAO.

Hahha, yeah, I love Roger, but I also question whether he's got the Wilanders to make a phone call to, ahem, Wilander.

Cahill would be a great choice. In a way, Jason Stoltenberg and Boris Becker would be good for him, too.

EDIT: This just in, Roger Federer has placed a very cryptic ad seeking a coach on the Find-a-pro section on the USPTA website.

TheNatural
05-12-2007, 01:17 PM
I read a while back that this year Fed chose to use Roche for a few months to prepare especially for the French Open. Then Fed was gong to go to Wimbledon alone. SO fed was going to be alone most the season after the French anyway. I guess they decided that another arrangement would be more suitable for Fed. But it's a strange time to end the relationship just before the French Open. I wonder if he will coach Fed until the end of the French Open of if the relationship ends immediately.

FedFan_2007
05-12-2007, 01:18 PM
Hahha, yeah, I love Roger, but I also question whether he's got the Wilanders to make a phone call to, ahem, Wilander.

Cahill would be a great choice. In a way, Jason Stoltenberg and Boris Becker would be good for him, too.

EDIT: This just in, Roger Federer has placed a very cryptic ad seeking a coach on the Find-a-pro section on the USPTA website.

Do you have to be a USPTA member to find this ad?

illkhiboy
05-12-2007, 01:26 PM
How about AgassI? I am pretty sure he is not available, but Andre seems to have so much knowledge about the game. Read any random post-match interview with him, they are very informative and fun to read as he analyzes his own and his opponent's games.

Defcon
05-12-2007, 01:43 PM
I would not be surprised if Rochie walked off because Fed was not following his instructions and he felt that he was not making an impact.

Its pretty obvious that for whatever reasons (lack of interest, confidence, slump) Federer is not playing aggressive tennis and is averse to taking risks on clay. Roche said specifically that he wanted Fed to try and come in much more, mix things up. It can't be easy for a great volleyer like him to see someone with so much talent like Fed not getting to net, and not using a different strategy on clay to beat Nadal and all the other dirtballers.

laurie
05-12-2007, 01:53 PM
I would not be surprised if Rochie walked off because Fed was not following his instructions and he felt that he was not making an impact.

Its pretty obvious that for whatever reasons (lack of interest, confidence, slump) Federer is not playing aggressive tennis and is averse to taking risks on clay. Roche said specifically that he wanted Fed to try and come in much more, mix things up. It can't be easy for a great volleyer like him to see someone with so much talent like Fed not getting to net, and not using a different strategy on clay to beat Nadal and all the other dirtballers.

I'm not saying if you are right or not but it is fact that Lundgren went on record many times between 2001 and 2003 sating that Roger should go to net much more because he has great volleying skills and athleticism. They ended the partnership on disagreements on playing styles - well more to the point, Roger ended that partnership.

Jet Rink
05-12-2007, 02:13 PM
haha. here's Mats Wilander's opportunity-- he can help Federer will those big balls that he spoke about in the interview :D

Mats would be a perfect choice. And if he wouldn't do it I'm throwing Johnny Mac's name into the hat.

Jet

NoBadMojo
05-12-2007, 02:29 PM
key words here are 'part time coach'. Roche was a part time coach, and I dont think he was very fond of the travel.
so far he has been with a full time coach, no coach, and a part time coach, and i would say he's done pretty well in all three scenarios..i think maybe Fed would benefot more from a fitness coach if he doesnt have one than a regular coach...i could see him being more imposing physically. after all, the game is much more a fitness grind at the pro level than it was before

Fedace
05-12-2007, 02:31 PM
I think fed should hire Tony Nadal as his new coach. Fed is so psyched out right now, only Tony can help, not roach either.

bluetrain4
05-12-2007, 02:33 PM
Brad Gilbert. He'd leave Murray in a heartbeat for the right price to coach Fed.

Fedace
05-12-2007, 02:43 PM
Brad Gilbert. He'd leave Murray in a heartbeat for the right price to coach Fed.

He cannot leave Murray, Brad is under contract with England lawn tennis association to coach Murray, brad is paid by ELTA not Murray. Brad will get sued real fast if he leaves Murray. Murray doesn't pay brad a penny, brad gets all his money from all england club.

Virtuous
05-12-2007, 03:07 PM
key words here are 'part time coach'. Roche was a part time coach, and I dont think he was very fond of the travel.
so far he has been with a full time coach, no coach, and a part time coach, and i would say he's done pretty well in all three scenarios..i think maybe Fed would benefot more from a fitness coach if he doesnt have one than a regular coach...i could see him being more imposing physically. after all, the game is much more a fitness grind at the pro level than it was before
He has a fitness coach who's been with him since his teens, Pierre Paganini

oscar_2424
05-12-2007, 03:10 PM
how about getting john mcenroe to coach him:)

NoBadMojo
05-12-2007, 03:13 PM
He has a fitness coach who's been with him since his teens, Pierre Paganini

i see..thanks....maybe it's time for a racquet change then to something w. a little larger sweetspot..he can no longer afford to give up those free and cheap points from frame balls and miss hits. he's vulnerable on the clay and when it's windy....situations where you dont get the perfect bounce all the time

diredesire
05-12-2007, 03:24 PM
merged the two duplicate threads together, sorry if there is any confusion (near the beginning of the thread)

edmondsm
05-12-2007, 03:25 PM
He should go coachless. He was doing fine without one.

jackcrawford
05-12-2007, 03:56 PM
He should go coachless. He was doing fine without one.
You can't make him into Pat Rafter like Roche tried to, he's not a natural volleyer, they're born, not made. Coachless would be best, an artist doesn't need a voice in his ear. Gilbert if his dissatisfaction with Murray continues to grow or Cahill would be ok as well.

PaulC
05-12-2007, 04:04 PM
The clay court expert? Jose Higgea (or something like that, spelling escape me)

NoBadMojo
05-12-2007, 04:15 PM
One thing that I believe happens is that when a Fed loses some matches to players who arent Nadal, his opponents may be lesss intimidated when they draw him and think they have a better chance at beating him..i think the intimidation factor is pretty important and one of the reasons why fed wins those crucial points...he could be in for a long clay court season..i think the losses to Canas were a milestone which could change the attitiude of Feds opponents

galain
05-12-2007, 04:30 PM
One thing that I believe happens is that when a Fed loses some matches to players who arent Nadal, his opponents may be lesss intimidated when they draw him and think they have a better chance at beating him..i think the intimidation factor is pretty important and one of the reasons why fed wins those crucial points...he could be in for a long clay court season..i think the losses to Canas were a milestone which could change the attitiude of Feds opponents

Coupled with this is a tendency I think, for Fed to not be the strongest believer in himself. I remember watching Haas beat him some time ago down here - great match - but looking at the two of them, Haas always looked more confident in himself. I've noticed this a few times with Fed - he seems a lot like a younger Lendl on occassion. Hitting a drive half volley winner happens a lot more easily when you "know" you can do it, versus thinking you can do it. It wouldn't surprise me if these recent losses throw Fed off a bit. Tie that in with opponents starting to see the gap between them closing and you have an interesting year ahead for the guy.

Having said that - I still want to see him continue to win everything in sight.

jmsx521
05-12-2007, 04:33 PM
He has a fitness coach who's been with him since his teens, Pierre PaganiniPaganini can certainly do a good job working with the positioning of Federer's fingers on the grip! ;)

ubel
05-12-2007, 04:56 PM
Coupled with this is a tendency I think, for Fed to not be the strongest believer in himself. I remember watching Haas beat him some time ago down here - great match - but looking at the two of them, Haas always looked more confident in himself. I've noticed this a few times with Fed - he seems a lot like a younger Lendl on occassion. Hitting a drive half volley winner happens a lot more easily when you "know" you can do it, versus thinking you can do it. It wouldn't surprise me if these recent losses throw Fed off a bit. Tie that in with opponents starting to see the gap between them closing and you have an interesting year ahead for the guy.

Having said that - I still want to see him continue to win everything in sight.
that's funny that you mention Lendl, because I remember reading the wikipedia page on him and seeing that he hired Roche to help him volley better in an effort to win Wimbledon. i think most of us know how that turned out.

in any case, i think this is going to end up being good for Federer, why not go back to what got you to the top? self-critique, hard work, and most importantly a reevaluation of how much he truly desires that clay court slam trophy could make the path he needs to take a bit more focused. sure, one or two weeks may not be enough time to shape his game into what it needs to be in order to ensure a victory at Roland Garros, but that doesn't mean he can't tweak his game here and there during Hamburg. maybe ironing out those few wrinkles that may have caused the last three early exits will be what he really needs for everything to click.

TENNIS_IS_FUN
05-12-2007, 05:07 PM
Safin should coach Federer.

Swissv2
05-12-2007, 05:19 PM
Safin should coach Federer.
on the art of breaking racquets.

latinking
05-12-2007, 05:46 PM
Every one keeps saying Cahill. I am pretty sure Cahill is back with Hewitt. Atleast I heard that on TV a couple days ago.

Fedace
05-12-2007, 05:50 PM
What about John Mcenroe?

pow
05-12-2007, 06:08 PM
Nadal should coach Federer, he's been taking him to school on clay lately anyways.

Craig Carter
05-12-2007, 06:27 PM
i see..thanks....maybe it's time for a racquet change then to something w. a little larger sweetspot..he can no longer afford to give up those free and cheap points from frame balls and miss hits. he's vulnerable on the clay and when it's windy....situations where you dont get the perfect bounce all the time

You recommend that the #1 player in the world (probably of all time) that has recently won Wimbledon, US Open, and Australian - but has trouble during two months of the year on red clay against clay guys - should change his racquet for possibly better results on clay or when its windy???? Sure, give him a buzz and tell him your thoughts on mid size frames; I'm sure he will agree ;)

mileslong
05-12-2007, 06:28 PM
Seems Tony’s main recipe is hard work and dedication but probably modeling and socializing don’t left much time for something else. Serena comes to mind, she liked it too. Tony has seen a lot and doesn’t need to waste his time.
that is beyond a stupid statement. more of my brain cells lost after reading that tripe. roche was a part time coach, feds game is off right now and he is trying to get it back to where it was. he played the best tennis of his life without a coach and he probably thinks this will help him focus more. both parties have said it was a mutual split with no hard feelings. don't make more out of it than it is....

mileslong
05-12-2007, 06:31 PM
i see..thanks....maybe it's time for a racquet change then to something w. a little larger sweetspot..he can no longer afford to give up those free and cheap points from frame balls and miss hits. he's vulnerable on the clay and when it's windy....situations where you dont get the perfect bounce all the time
yeah like an oversized one like you play with except his is at SW2 of course with a lead lining on both sides of the hoop circling the entire frame with another slab of lead at 7.5" above the handle and two fishing lures inside the butt cap. this will equal travlerjams estimate SW of 570....

TheNatural
05-12-2007, 07:05 PM
here's a good article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article1782044.ece

Swissv2
05-12-2007, 07:11 PM
read that article and I would have to say I really need to get some copies of Roger's losing matches to see what he has been doing wrong for myself.

tennishead93
05-12-2007, 07:23 PM
who was couriers old coach? was it jose hugueras?

bluedecember
05-12-2007, 07:34 PM
Atleast one of my predictions turned out to be accurate...I sensed it..I agree that there might be a tactical disagreement between the two.Fed is way too stuborn and arrogant( As much as i like him) to accept recent defeats as his own undoing....if he looses in first round of FO ..someone else will be sacrificed...Mirka???..just kidding i he is gaga about her...seriously though fed should go solo for now IMHO...

Tennis_Monk
05-12-2007, 08:20 PM
Thanks a lot for all the correct predictions!!

NoBadMojo
05-12-2007, 09:08 PM
Coupled with this is a tendency I think, for Fed to not be the strongest believer in himself. I remember watching Haas beat him some time ago down here - great match - but looking at the two of them, Haas always looked more confident in himself. I've noticed this a few times with Fed - he seems a lot like a younger Lendl on occassion. Hitting a drive half volley winner happens a lot more easily when you "know" you can do it, versus thinking you can do it. It wouldn't surprise me if these recent losses throw Fed off a bit. Tie that in with opponents starting to see the gap between them closing and you have an interesting year ahead for the guy.

Having said that - I still want to see him continue to win everything in sight.

ya man..i dunno about this conversation, but i always look for your posts..they're really classy...and i can tell they come from someone who is a gentleman with a real passion for the game..i think there is a really fine line between a win and a loss..especially at that level..and i too want to see Fed keep winning..he's got all the shots...but so does Haas.except Haas seems to be a bit more fragile. cheers, Ed

Mick
05-12-2007, 09:20 PM
here's a good article.
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article1782044.ece

Wow. Roche was the fall guy. The article suggests that Federer was not too happy with Roche's coaching. I think Federer himself was more to blame than Roche based upon the number of unforced errors he had committed in the matches that he lost.
_____________________

excerpts from article:

"Repeated failures on clay have led to the world No 1 splitting from Tony Roche just two weeks before the start of the French Open"

"They have spent more time together on the practice court this spring than ever before. Last month the pair arrived in Monte Carlo five days before most of the other players for the first big clay court event of the year and they were at Rome’s Foro Italico even earlier."

"But results have not lived up to expectations. Last week Federer was clearly shocked by the lack of quality in his performance as he lost in straight sets in the third round of the Inter****onali BNL d’Italia to 53rd-ranked Filippo Volandri."

mileslong
05-12-2007, 09:23 PM
hey NBM, while you are on this thread, i wanted to ask you how you are liking the dnx10 MP? i played with the mid for a while and liked it but didnt serve that great with it like i do with my dunlop AG100. i demoed the dnx10 MP and could hit groundies all day with it but again didnt serve that great with it.

im a long time user of the old C10 pro tour and i love volkls...

Fedace
05-12-2007, 09:23 PM
who was couriers old coach? was it jose hugueras?

Correct, Jose higueras would be the perfect coach, fed dominates on all other surfaces except clay so he would be perfect, courier did not win the french til he hooked up with coach Higueras. also Michael chang was coached by Higueras as well just prior to winning the french.

BreakPoint
05-12-2007, 09:32 PM
IMO there's two specific coaches he should look to.
a) someone to help him further his volleys (like woodforde has been doing with djokovic) or
b) Another coach who specialised on clay and who can help him get at Nadal and hopefully for him get a FO
How about Jose Higueras? He coached both Chang and Courier to French Open championships.

Oops, looks like you guys beat me to it. ;)

Mick
05-12-2007, 09:35 PM
haha. Perhaps Federer should get Bjorn Borg to coach him on how to win at Roland Garros . News headline would read "Goat coaching Goat" :)

mileslong
05-12-2007, 09:36 PM
Perhaps Federer should get Bjorn Borg to coach him on how to win Roland Garros
he could coach fed on how to pick up girls in cheesy european discos...

Mick
05-12-2007, 09:37 PM
he could coach fed on how to pick up girls in cheesy european discos...

haha mirka would not approve of making Borg Federer's coach then.

BreakPoint
05-12-2007, 09:38 PM
On second thought, how about Bjorn Borg? Can you imagine Federer hooking up with Borg, the best ever on clay? Borg can even tell Federer how he was able to adjust between clay and grass, since they both also have dominance on grass in common as well.

I'd bet Borg in his prime would have man-handled Nadal on clay. :-o

Man, you guys keep beating me to every idea for a coach!

psamp14
05-12-2007, 09:40 PM
How about Jose Higueras? He coached both Chang and Courier to French Open championships.

Oops, looks like you guys beat me to it. ;)

haha. Perhaps Federer should get Bjorn Borg to coach him on how to win at Roland Garros . News headline would read "Goat coaching Goat" :)

breakpoint you're always right but mick..you're on the money $$ ;)

psamp14
05-12-2007, 09:43 PM
On second thought, how about Bjorn Borg? Can you imagine Federer hooking up with Borg, the best ever on clay? Borg can even tell Federer how he was able to adjust between clay and grass, since they both also have dominance on grass in common as well.

I'd bet Borg in his prime would have man-handled Nadal on clay. :-o

Man, you guys keep beating me to every idea for a coach!

genius! why not hire more greats as 'part-time' coaches? john mcenroe? rod laver? pete sampras? :)

asintu
05-12-2007, 09:47 PM
Brad Gilbert. He'd leave Murray in a heartbeat for the right price to coach Fed.

That would be a lethal combination!!! Although I doubt he'll leave Murray.

Mick
05-12-2007, 09:51 PM
Borg said to win on clay, you have to believe that you can win on clay :)

(he sounded like Yogi Berra)

_________________________

http://www.rediff.com/sports/2001/may/12borg.htm

From that perspective, what advice would you give a Pete Sampras, who is still struggling to win a French?

BB: I think I would tell him that it is toughest to win on clay. It is easily the most draining, the toughest Slam. I would advice him to concentrate on mental strength, to build it up, to hold that strength over the course of the fortnight. Along with that, you also need a great deal of physical strength. And most important, you have to believe that you can win on clay.

christo
05-12-2007, 10:45 PM
We would do well to remember what Davydenko said today, "Physically I was not strong enough to beat Nadal" And that was 3 sets! When AA finally won FO was when he punished himself in training, working with Gil Reyes. To win FO you must be stronger than the others, Nadal proves this time and again.
Roger needs to stop with the Vogue lifestyle, even Canas was too fit for him.

hoosierbr
05-12-2007, 11:40 PM
My take is that the gap between Fed and the other players is closing, slowly but surely. We've seen glimpses of it over the last couple of years but Fed has managed to pull through by staying mentally strong in tough conditions.

Two examples are the last two US Open finals. He's played two Americans, Agassi and Roddick, both squared the match at one set a piece and the crowd was really into it. Agassi (in 2005) came awfully close to winning the third and would have, as Fed himself said, won the match in that situation. Roddick stayed tough until falling apart at the end of the third set (last year). Roger could have easily lost both matches but he stayed strong upstairs which he didn't do when he was younger.

It seems like he's going backwards mentally a bit, not physically. A dramatic change like switching racquets (he's won 10 with a variation of the same stick) wouldn't do him any good in the long term I don't think. Short term fix for a bigger problem.

tursafinov
05-13-2007, 01:00 AM
Saw this on sports center and checked it out.
from ESPN.com

"Mired in his worst slump in more than three years, Roger Federer is splitting from coach Tony Roche.

The top-ranked Federer announced the change on his Web site Saturday, saying he and Roche mutually decided to end their arrangement. The move leaves Federer without a coach two weeks before the May 27 start of the French Open, the only Grand Slam tournament he hasn't won.

Kristian Dowling/Getty Images
Roger Federer and Tony Roche had been working together for the past two years.

Roche has worked with Federer part time for the past 2 years. The Swiss star won six of his 10 major championships in that span.

"I thank Tony very much for his efforts over these last years, during which I appreciated the 12-15 weeks per season we would work together," Federer said on his site. "I am also grateful for the sacrifice he made, traveling so far from his home in Australia and leaving his family."

Roche was with Federer this week at the Rome Masters, where he was upset in the third round by Filippo Volandri, ranked 53rd in the world. That loss meant Federer has played in four consecutive tournaments without winning a title, his longest such drought since he rose to No. 1 in the rankings in February 2004.

"I don't know what's wrong. I have to analyze it myself," Federer said after the defeat in Rome.

He added that he thought he needed to "get back on the practice courts instead of the match courts."

Roche is a former Australian Davis Cup captain who also has coached top-ranked players Ivan Lendl and Patrick Rafter.

Federer has worked off and on with coaches since his longtime coach Peter Carter died in a car crash in 2002. Federer was coached by Peter Lundgren in 2003, then didn't have a coach at all the next year, when he won 11 titles -- including three majors.

He brought Roche aboard before the 2005 Australian Open, working with him in Sydney for two weeks. At the time, Federer said: "I hope he can improve my game just a little bit. I like the way I'm playing right now. If he can improve just a few things in my game, that will be good."

I have a feeling he'll go on a big run again.
~Tursa

slice bh compliment
05-13-2007, 01:07 AM
....I have a feeling he'll go on a big run again.
~Tursa

You, my friend, are an optimist. I think it is going to get worse before it gets better later this summer.

I do like the line about getting back on the practice court. Bodes well for the long, hot summer.

Go Roger!

Rochey, you're probably just fine, but if you're looking for a gig you can always come hit with me and my friends. It's kind of a tough commute over here to the States, though. ANd we can't really afford you, but we'd have a great time for sure.

tursafinov
05-13-2007, 01:22 AM
You, my friend, are an optimist. I think it is going to get worse before it gets better later this summer.

I'll admit to being a glass half full guy...but sometimes I find I have the best results when I leave my coaches words at home, and make my way to the courts at night,turn on the lights, and stare at the balls for a while, take my shirt off, have a sip of water, and start serving/hitting till my game clicks.
It may take an hour or more but I'll get that one shot that physically felt right, as if my muscles and bones all worked together, and at contact, aligned with the stars. I'll pack it up then because I remember what playing my game feels like again.

That's the closest definition I have to Soul Searching.
I'm sure Federer will experience it too.

~Tursa

slice bh compliment
05-13-2007, 01:24 AM
Do you have to be a USPTA member to find this ad?

Yes, you have to log in to the Find-a-Pro section. Then click 'dream jobs', then click on the celebrity coach icon, then hit settings, load a video resume and hit SEND.

Sorry, I was kidding all along.

slice bh compliment
05-13-2007, 01:30 AM
I'll admit to being a glass half full guy...but sometimes I find I have the best results when I leave my coaches words at home, and make my way to the courts at night,turn on the lights, and stare at the balls for a while, take my shirt off, have a sip of water, and start serving/hitting till my game clicks.
It may take an hour or more but I'll get that one shot that physically felt right, as if my muscles and bones all worked together, and at contact, aligned with the stars. I'll pack it up then because I remember what playing my game feels like again.

That's the closest definition I have to Soul Searching.
I'm sure Federer will experience it too.

~Tursa

Wow, yeah, man. It's such a feel game, definitely. And for that, you've got the play with soul. I do the same thing, only I leave my shirt on, and the lights off. Learned that from this one coach I had a while ago, Coach Kenobi. Obi Wan was his first name, iirc.

Well, I feel you. I've always gotten a whole lot out of that kind of practice, especially for the shot after my serve, my returns and of course, passing shots. ANd I've always played my best at night with bad lighting. Makes me watch better, and that taught me a lot about my game during the day, too.

Now, Federer, who is unfathomably better than us .... who knows what he's thinking and planning. I think you're right, though, he's frustrated and ultra-motivated. We'll have to thank Volandri for this, I think.

tricky
05-13-2007, 01:34 AM
I think Federer himself was more to blame than Roche based upon the number of unforced errors he had committed in the matches that he lost.

Hard to say, really. Federer's point construction hasn't been good the last 2-3 months; at times, he looked like he believed his own hype and tried to outshoot his way out of holes . . . which is what he used to do before his 3-year run. But it could be because he felt deeply uncomfortable with whatever gameplan his coach was promoting. Also it looks like intentionally not playing matches this year has not been good either.

But it's clear he won't be anywhere near optimal for the French Open. Firing your coach prior to a GS is never, ever a good sign. We *may* see a first week exit this year.

tursafinov
05-13-2007, 01:37 AM
Wow, yeah, man. It's such a feel game, definitely. And for that, you've got the play with soul. I do the same thing, only I leave my shirt on, and the lights off. Learned that from this one coach I had a while ago, Coach Kenobi. Obi Wan was his first name, iirc.

Well, I feel you. I've always gotten a whole lot out of that kind of practice, especially for the shot after my serve, my returns and of course, passing shots. ANd I've always played my best at night with bad lighting. Makes me watch better, and that taught me a lot about my game during the day, too.

Now, Federer, who is unfathomably better than us .... who knows what he's thinking and planning. I think you're right, though, he's frustrated and ultra-motivated. We'll have to thank Volandri for this, I think.

Preach it preach it.

Fed needs to watch/listen to Jimi Hendrix.
If that won't restore his genius than we'll have the
most anticlimactic Athletic Career in history..Even worse than Safin.

~Tursa

slice bh compliment
05-13-2007, 01:42 AM
...the
most anticlimactic Athletic Career in history..Even worse than Safin.

~Tursa

Worse than Safin.


Ouch.

fastdunn
05-13-2007, 02:04 AM
hmm, i don't think it's just clay issue. note that he had two early exits
on hard courts.

the speeds of all surfaces are converging to the middle.

If he really has problems on clay or hard courts, he will have similar
problems on grass too.

PimpMyGame
05-13-2007, 02:06 AM
How about Ruzedski? He could teach him something different, like how not to win a major.

Definitely not McEnroe, in general these guys teach or do. This guy did it and I don't think he could teach it.

Roger is one of the most talented players of all time; he shouldn't rush the decision - wait for Henman to retire lol

fastdunn
05-13-2007, 02:18 AM
Hard to say, really. Federer's point construction hasn't been good the last 2-3 months; at times, he looked like he believed his own hype and tried to outshoot his way out of holes . . . which is what he used to do before his 3-year run. But it could be because he felt deeply uncomfortable with whatever gameplan his coach was promoting. Also it looks like intentionally not playing matches this year has not been good either.

But it's clear he won't be anywhere near optimal for the French Open. Firing your coach prior to a GS is never, ever a good sign. We *may* see a first week exit this year.

I'm not sure. He fired Peter Lungren and did fine at slams after that.
Roche was a part time coach any way.

It's always been Federer's footwork and backhand that has been letting him down
whenever he struggled. (Although it was his serve sometimes).
Volandri's backhahnd was better than Federer's on that day he lost
and he made so many errors in hitting running/moving forehand when stretched.
From 2006, he started to struggle at early rounds but he still did get thru
with his B or C game.

The rest of tour has catched up now. Including the talented new generations
of players, there are now quite a few players who nearly mastered that
power baseline yo-yo tennis that Federer and Nadal have been so good at.
Look how Davydenko plays now. I think he is technically at the same level
as Federer or Nadal if we consider the power baseline game only ....

OrangeOne
05-13-2007, 02:26 AM
Do you have to be a USPTA member to find this ad?

No, but I do indeed have some real, genuine shares in a Nigerian Bank to sell you, some real Rolexes too.

On topic: I'm with those thinking that this will kick-start Fed a little.

thu_huong
05-13-2007, 02:28 AM
Maybe Toni is tired of travelling and being away from home. He's old now:(

christos_liaskos
05-13-2007, 03:46 AM
Many people are saying Fed should hire a coach who specialises on clay and RG but what about the idea that being obssessed with one tournament or even one player can hurt the rest of your game. I am just having a brain freeze at the moment but I think the same happened to a previous great player but cant think of his name. This could be what has been happening with Fed. He thinks that to beat Nadal on clay he has to use his top spin BH to its best and therefore practices it as much as he can in all his other matches. In these matches however, the slice BH would have helped him alot but his obssession with perfecting the top spin has hurt him. As the top spin BH starts to break down, so does his confidence.

To sum all this up, I think someone with some clay know-how or experience would be useful but to focus all efforts on RG and Nadal could not only see his game against other players suffer but if he is not carefull he could end up not putting enough focus into his grass season.

On another point, its interesting how technology has changed the world. Previously a player may have had to set up a press conference to announce to the world that he is splitting from his coach. Nowadays though they dont have to worry with that stress, they just put a statement on their website and dont have to bother with the stress of facing the world straight away.

slice bh compliment
05-13-2007, 03:51 AM
.... slice BH would have helped him alot.....

I appreciate the vote of confidence there, xpisto. Thanks, but I really believe there are other, more qualified candidates for the position.

HyperHorse
05-13-2007, 04:34 AM
Im starting to tire of these one line replies....
If you dont have enough thought to post something decent, dont post at all!!!
Having said that, maybe Rochey is tired of all the travel...
Maybe Fed needs some personal space... Maybe this loss is a wake up call....
Better hope he's been hitting the weights room if he wants to have any chance of winning the FO....
Maybe he needs an attitude/ego readjustment?
Didnt he say he's using a larger head racquet for clay?
What's happening with that??

thu_huong
05-13-2007, 04:37 AM
Im starting to tire of these one line replies....
If you dont have enough thought to post something decent, dont post at all!!!
Having said that, maybe Rochey is tired of all the travel...
Maybe Fed needs some personal space... Maybe this loss is a wake up call....
Better hope he's been hitting the weights room if he wants to have any chance of winning the FO....
Maybe he needs an attitude/ego readjustment?
Didnt he say he's using a larger head racquet for clay?
What's happening with that??

what's happening with you?:mad:

tennis_hand
05-13-2007, 05:37 AM
Jim Courier. :D

NoBadMojo
05-13-2007, 05:44 AM
hey NBM, while you are on this thread, i wanted to ask you how you are liking the dnx10 MP? i played with the mid for a while and liked it but didnt serve that great with it like i do with my dunlop AG100. i demoed the dnx10 MP and could hit groundies all day with it but again didnt serve that great with it.

im a long time user of the old C10 pro tour and i love volkls...

yo..and i'm a big fan of the t10mpGen1 and the dnx10mp seems to come from the same tool. so a nice transition for me..not much of an adjustment..i think all the 10series frames do everything well.

drakulie
05-13-2007, 07:13 AM
Maybe Fed could convince one of the posters on these boards to walk away from their keyboard and coach him.

Mick
05-13-2007, 07:17 AM
Maybe Fed could convince one of the posters on these boards to walk away from their keyboard and coach him.

haha. And maybe FOX should make a contest out of it (like American Idol) . People would present why they would make a good coach for Federer and demonstrate their tennis ability. I would want to watch something like that :)

rommil
05-13-2007, 08:06 AM
Actually Warriorroger suggested Graf to coach Federer to improve his slice backhand lol.

OrangeOne
05-13-2007, 09:22 AM
Im starting to tire of these one line replies....

The irony of life.... Perhaps before you criticise others you could make sure you're above that criticism yourself? A few 'complete posts' of yours:

Well, it still aint there....

A "Super Moderator" is someone who can woop your *** should you act nasty on these message boards.

This is the funniest thing ive read in a LONG TIME...

All the tennis magazines are rubbish... All you need is the internet.

J-man
05-13-2007, 09:29 AM
This a tough time for Federer. Roche was his mentor espically during the clay court season. Federer is going to have to hump it out now.

HyperHorse
05-13-2007, 09:30 AM
The irony of life.... Perhaps before you criticise others you could make sure you're above that criticism yourself? A few 'complete posts' of yours:

Well some threads are only worthy of a 1 line thread....
Im glad you think so much of me to point out some irony, Mr Lendl Lover....

This a tough time for Federer. Roche was his mentor espically during the clay court season. Federer is going to have to hump it out now.

You mean hump it out with Mirka? lol sorry i couldnt help myself :-D

Young Pete
05-13-2007, 09:52 AM
rog needs to call up his idol the greatest the king of swing aka Pete Sampras

sureshs
05-13-2007, 10:00 AM
i think maybe Fed would benefot more from a fitness coach if he doesnt have one

he has one

sureshs
05-13-2007, 10:02 AM
I heard a rumor Federer is going to pick one of the TW posters to be his coach.

goforgold99
05-13-2007, 10:02 AM
I heard Ana Ivanovic loves Roger. He should hook up with her :D

Fedace
05-13-2007, 10:05 AM
This a tough time for Federer. Roche was his mentor espically during the clay court season. Federer is going to have to hump it out now.

Why would anyone want Roche as a coach during clay season anyway, he was a chip and charge aussie. Fed needs some real clay expert like higueras, or Solomon or Lendle or even better YANNICK NOAH, now there is a formal french open champ that knew how to attack on clay.:D

Bjorn99
05-13-2007, 11:18 AM
I watched the Volandri match and I have to tell you. This guy Federer WILL not win the French Open. He is displaying a stubbornness in keeping his hard court game going on the dirt that will only result in losses.

The guy was on the run of runs last year, but he displayed a phenomenal MENTAL block last year on the high backhand. It was so insane to watch him try to hit through those moose balls by Rafa.

And that racquet is a joke on clay. It is barely playable on hard courts, on clay it is like using a wooden paddle.

Stubborn can obviously come in handy to become a champion, but PERHAPS this coaching move will result in someone or HIM, coming to some realistic conclusions.

sureshs
05-13-2007, 11:34 AM
And that racquet is a joke on clay. It is barely playable on hard courts, on clay it is like using a wooden paddle.


Hear, hear.

BreakPoint
05-13-2007, 11:39 AM
I heard Ana Ivanovic loves Roger. He should hook up with her :D
Serena Williams also loves Roger. Perhaps they should hook up instead. ;) :-o

BreakPoint
05-13-2007, 11:41 AM
I heard a rumor Federer is going to pick one of the TW posters to be his coach.
A-ha! I was wondering who that e-mail from an "R Fed" was from. ;) LOL

sureshs
05-13-2007, 11:41 AM
Serena Williams also loves Roger. Perhaps they should hook up instead. ;) :-o

She can teach him how to win the French Open. But he will collapse soon after due to her "demands".

goforgold99
05-13-2007, 11:45 AM
Serena Williams also loves Roger. Perhaps they should hook up instead. ;) :-o
Fine with me! I'll take Ana then.. :p :D

ShooterMcMarco
05-13-2007, 11:54 AM
I nominate Aykhan Mammadov as Roger's next coach. He will teach him not to tremble during crucial points.

tennis_hand
05-13-2007, 06:04 PM
Reports say that he will either take Cahill or Roger Rasheed. Just imagine he took up Roger as the coach.

well, he may just go ahead without a coach. He may even play better this way at this point of the tournament.
After all, he is never out of advisers. Around him he has a lot of friends who advise him.

larlarbd
05-13-2007, 06:28 PM
Mirka is next... then partying with Safin.

Atleast Safin will the sane one then.

larlarbd
05-13-2007, 06:32 PM
Serena Williams also loves Roger. Perhaps they should hook up instead. ;) :-o

Woo , that's interesting , but think about breaking up with serena when things won't go well, Woo ........ that's gonna be nasty . Caz we all know serena isn't gonna go down without a fight .

Me thinks Roger knows that ....

Alafter
05-13-2007, 07:21 PM
Reports say that he will either take Cahill or Roger Rasheed. Just imagine he took up Roger as the coach.

well, he may just go ahead without a coach. He may even play better this way at this point of the tournament.
After all, he is never out of advisers. Around him he has a lot of friends who advise him.


Roger roger?

Alafter
05-13-2007, 07:25 PM
And that racquet is a joke on clay. It is barely playable on hard courts, on clay it is like using a wooden paddle.



Of course, of course. You WOULD know BETTER than professional tour players who's been through a gazillion tournaments what RACQUET will be good for him, and probable better than professional COACHES. I hope Roger calls you up soon, because TW poster knows.

austro
05-14-2007, 12:14 AM
While it would be interesting to see Borg, JMac or any of these old time greats coach Roger, I don't think he will follow that route. It would be an essential admission of defeat. You could never say with certainty if Roger's subsequent greatness (if it reasserts itself) stems from within or was bestowed by another legend...

CEvertFan
05-14-2007, 12:55 AM
that's funny that you mention Lendl, because I remember reading the wikipedia page on him and seeing that he hired Roche to help him volley better in an effort to win Wimbledon. i think most of us know how that turned out.

in any case, i think this is going to end up being good for Federer, why not go back to what got you to the top? self-critique, hard work, and most importantly a reevaluation of how much he truly desires that clay court slam trophy could make the path he needs to take a bit more focused. sure, one or two weeks may not be enough time to shape his game into what it needs to be in order to ensure a victory at Roland Garros, but that doesn't mean he can't tweak his game here and there during Hamburg. maybe ironing out those few wrinkles that may have caused the last three early exits will be what he really needs for everything to click.

The problem with the Roche/Lendl relationship was that Lendl was never going to be a great volleyer, heck he wasn't even a good one IMO. Lendl made the mistake of thinking that to win Wimbledon you HAVE to serve/volley EVERY point. You don't, as Agassi proved. Lendl might have won one Wimby if he had stuck more to his own game and not gone out of his comfort zone quite so much.

As for Fed splitting from Roche, all we can do is speculate as to the reason why. Roche is "old school' tennis which means serve/volley every point, but that style of play just doesn't work as well these days as it did in the past.

Fed has done well for himself in the past w/o a coach, so let's see how things go and if he feels that he needs a coach then I for one hope he picks a good one.

FarFed
05-14-2007, 01:21 AM
Very good point CEvertFan. The main thing is to stick to one's natural game. It's clear from the articles of Federer's split with Roche that Federer was doing too much to get himself comfortable on clay, like trying to get a heavy topspin on his forehands (which I think accounted for the loads of unforced errors off it).

The problem with the Roche/Lendl relationship was that Lendl was never going to be a great volleyer, heck he wasn't even a good one IMO. Lendl made the mistake of thinking that to win Wimbledon you HAVE to serve/volley EVERY point. You don't, as Agassi proved. Lendl might have won one Wimby if he had stuck more to his own game and not gone out of his comfort zone quite so much.

As for Fed splitting from Roche, all we can do is speculate as to the reason why. Roche is "old school' tennis which means serve/volley every point, but that style of play just doesn't work as well these days as it did in the past.

Fed has done well for himself in the past w/o a coach, so let's see how things go and if he feels that he needs a coach then I for one hope he picks a good one.

Trainer
05-14-2007, 04:38 AM
I think he needs to hire Richard Williams. I bet they'd get along great.

crosscourt
05-14-2007, 04:52 AM
If I was Federer I would get Wilander in my camp for the next month now. In the last two years Federer has been the second best player on clay. There is nothing in the technical side of his game that is going to be fixed before Roland Garros. What he needs is someone like Wilander to give him the gameplan/confidence to go out and (i) get to the final at RG and (ii) push Nadal as far as he can be pushed.

Bassus
05-14-2007, 05:06 AM
I have to agree with the line of thought that says Federer should only make slight modifications to his game for clay. At this point, it is too risky, and probably too late, to try drastic alterations.

He should have beaten Nadal at Rome last year, but simply choked it away multiple times in the 5th set.

The French Open of 06 was a big let down after the epic final in Rome. Federer played okay-good at times, but mentally wilted as soon as he dumped serve in the second set (after being up 40-0). The first set was as much Nadal playing bad as it was Federer playing good. In fact, Nadal didn't even have to play his best because Federer didn't make him.


This year, Nadal seems to have improved, while the extra clay court preparations seems to have hurt Federer. The silver-lining to the Canas losses -- that it would give him more time to prepare for clay -- has not worked out at all. Why he would want to tinker with his forehand is completely beyond me. Why mess with one of the greatest shots in tennis history? His forehand troubles on clay in the recent past were limited mostly to matches against Nadal, which suggests something mental. I could understand experimenting with the backhand to try and handle Nadal's high heavy shots better, but the forehand?

Baghdatis72
05-14-2007, 05:19 AM
After Davydenko pushed Nadal in the Rome SF Federer should watch the match 5 times and see what Davydenko was doing that lead to this result against Nadal. I mean he is a pro and trying to find the opponent's weaknesses is a major part of the game and we also know that Federer can do almost anything on court.
What he has to do is let fear go, get some balls of steel and use the method Nikolay used to break Nadal in order to beat him.

SCSI
05-14-2007, 05:44 AM
As good as Federer is, he is not the pure ball striker like Davydenko. Davydenko was able to hit Nadal's topspin shots on the rise on both wings, which Federer is not able to do.

sureshs
05-14-2007, 05:48 AM
As good as Federer is, he is not the pure ball striker like Davydenko. Davydenko was able to hit Nadal's topspin shots on the rise on both wings, which Federer is not able to do.

1 handed backhand is just not suitable for this.

skiracer55
05-14-2007, 08:11 AM
...some thoughts:

- It's really hard to figure out if anybody could be a good coach for Roger at this point. Everybody's talking about a coach to spiff up the technical aspects of his game, , or his tactics, or his fitness, or whatever, but I hardly think that's what it is. We're talking about a guy in his mid-20s who's already won ten slams and absolutely dominated at Wimbledon the last few years, and now he appears to be slipping a little. How do you coach somebody back to greatness? I don't think you do, because where Roger was, recently, is pretty rarified air. I think it's up to Roger at this point.

- Roger has a bad patch this year after winning the Australian convincingly, and now everybody thinks Roger is finished. I think that's a little harsh, personally. Everybody conveniently forgets that Pete Sampras won the 1990 US Open at 19, and took a couple of years to come to grips with what it meant to be great so young...so Roger's just a late bloomer in that respect. He'll win again, because he's Roger and he wants to.

- Having said all that good stuff, I think Roger's got a tough row to hoe this year. As somebody pointed out, the speed (and tactics) on different surfaces is beginning to narrow...with the significant exception of the US Open. I've heard from an insider that they're purposely resurfacing the US Open courts faster and faster every year to help Roddick, or Blake, or Sam Querry break through and finally have a US winner. With the French coming up, and Wimbledon slower, that's all a formula for Roger to struggle this year. Fine, so he'll figure out how to fight harder, or whatever he needs to do to make it happen. My outrageous prediction? Roger's going to get tough and win the French. Then watch out...

Shaolin
05-14-2007, 08:20 AM
^Very well put. I agree with everything you just said.

Zaragoza
05-14-2007, 08:40 AM
Federer said that he will not look for a new coach before Wimbledon. After Wimbledon maybe he will look for one, but probably not a full-time coach. Link in Spanish:


http://www.marca.com/edicion/marca/tenis/es/desarrollo/993439.html

Ryan
05-14-2007, 10:36 AM
Your missing someone else who would be good for Fed. What about Bob Brett? He coached Becker, Ivanisevic and Ancic to name a few. He's currently available working out of his academy in Italy.

dr_punk
05-14-2007, 10:47 AM
someone call up lansdorp

ksbh
05-14-2007, 11:09 AM
Great post Skiracer.

Except for the last line prediction though. In my opinion, Federer will likely find a way to get to the finals of the French Open again. If he does, he'll find Nadal across the net from him and Nadal will take him down again.

Nadal is in incredible form and I haven't seen anyone dominate a clay court season the way he's been doing. I don't see him losing at the French Open.

...some thoughts:

- It's really hard to figure out if anybody could be a good coach for Roger at this point. Everybody's talking about a coach to spiff up the technical aspects of his game, , or his tactics, or his fitness, or whatever, but I hardly think that's what it is. We're talking about a guy in his mid-20s who's already won ten slams and absolutely dominated at Wimbledon the last few years, and now he appears to be slipping a little. How do you coach somebody back to greatness? I don't think you do, because where Roger was, recently, is pretty rarified air. I think it's up to Roger at this point.

- Roger has a bad patch this year after winning the Australian convincingly, and now everybody thinks Roger is finished. I think that's a little harsh, personally. Everybody conveniently forgets that Pete Sampras won the 1990 US Open at 19, and took a couple of years to come to grips with what it meant to be great so young...so Roger's just a late bloomer in that respect. He'll win again, because he's Roger and he wants to.

- Having said all that good stuff, I think Roger's got a tough row to hoe this year. As somebody pointed out, the speed (and tactics) on different surfaces is beginning to narrow...with the significant exception of the US Open. I've heard from an insider that they're purposely resurfacing the US Open courts faster and faster every year to help Roddick, or Blake, or Sam Querry break through and finally have a US winner. With the French coming up, and Wimbledon slower, that's all a formula for Roger to struggle this year. Fine, so he'll figure out how to fight harder, or whatever he needs to do to make it happen. My outrageous prediction? Roger's going to get tough and win the French. Then watch out...

fastdunn
05-14-2007, 11:17 AM
1 handed backhand is just not suitable for this.

Yeah, also the footwork. Nadal moves you left and right very wide.
All mighty, potentially best in history, forehand of Federer apparently
suffers when hit on the run making lots of UE's.

The potential GOAT, Federer, as if appeares to be good at every single thing.

However, there are handful of players now who can apparent run better
backhand better and hit forehand on the run better, at least against Nadal.

sureshs
05-14-2007, 11:20 AM
Yeah, also the footwork. Nadal moves you left and right very wide.
All mighty, potentially best in history, forehand of Federer apparently
suffers when hit on the run making lots of UE's.

The potential GOAT, Federer, as if appeares to be good at every single thing.

However, there are handful of players now who can apparent run better
backhand better and hit forehand on the run better, at least against Nadal.

Is the future of singles tennis 2 handed backhand? Gaston Gaudio is on the verge of retirement. Blake's BH is notoriously inconsistent. Federer is not doing well recently. Tommy Haas and Lube are doing well I suppose. I cannot help feeling the future does not look too good for the 1 hander.

sureshs
05-14-2007, 11:28 AM
Money seems to be one of the reasons for the split. Roche apparently was not satisfied with the bonuses.

It all comes down to money, doesn't it?

chris1992
05-14-2007, 11:33 AM
Is the future of singles tennis 2 handed backhand? Gaston Gaudio is on the verge of retirement. Blake's BH is notoriously inconsistent. Federer is not doing well recently. Tommy Haas and Lube are doing well I suppose. I cannot help feeling the future does not look too good for the 1 hander.


I see what your saying. However, i have always seen one advantage in the single handed b/hand and that is, that you are given alot more reach.

In the tournaments i play, as a junior, nearly 85-90% of my opponents have a double handed backhand which is a lot more than what i have seen in the seniors. The message from here is that, yes, the double handed b/hand is the future and i doubt there will be many more at pro level, unless coaches change players styles when there in their late teens which is unlikely.

sureshs
05-14-2007, 11:39 AM
I see what your saying. However, i have always seen one advantage in the single handed b/hand and that is, that you are given alot more reach.

In the tournaments i play, as a junior, nearly 85-90% of my opponents have a double handed backhand which is a lot more than what i have seen in the seniors. The message from here is that, yes, the double handed b/hand is the future and i doubt there will be many more at pro level, unless coaches change players styles when there in their late teens which is unlikely.


I have a 1 hander (couldn't get the 2 hander to work) and it is ideal for "lazy" play. Seems to require less energy and footwork to get the ball across decently. Slice comes naturally too. But attacking on the rise or hitting the short ball abruptly cross court is very difficult.

BreakPoint
05-14-2007, 12:02 PM
I have a 1 hander (couldn't get the 2 hander to work) and it is ideal for "lazy" play. Seems to require less energy and footwork to get the ball across decently. Slice comes naturally too. But attacking on the rise or hitting the short ball abruptly cross court is very difficult.
That depends on how good your 1HBH is. I can attack and hit on the rise with my 1HBH better than with my forehand. The big difference is that with a 1HBH, you hit the ball well in front of you which makes it much easier to manipulate the ball and add variety to your shots than either the 2HBH or the forehand, both of which are hit when the ball is closer and more to the side of your body.

illkhiboy
05-14-2007, 12:38 PM
The problem with the Roche/Lendl relationship was that Lendl was never going to be a great volleyer, heck he wasn't even a good one IMO. Lendl made the mistake of thinking that to win Wimbledon you HAVE to serve/volley EVERY point. You don't, as Agassi proved. Lendl might have won one Wimby if he had stuck more to his own game and not gone out of his comfort zone quite so much.

As for Fed splitting from Roche, all we can do is speculate as to the reason why. Roche is "old school' tennis which means serve/volley every point, but that style of play just doesn't work as well these days as it did in the past.

Fed has done well for himself in the past w/o a coach, so let's see how things go and if he feels that he needs a coach then I for one hope he picks a good one.

Didn't Lendl reach 2 Finals at Wimbledon with the help of Roche? So it's just that he failed to win one match each time. I don't see how that has much to do with the coach's failure.

tamaj13
05-14-2007, 12:42 PM
Sorry, don't know how to delete a post

tamaj13
05-14-2007, 12:42 PM
I have a feeling that Roche probably wanted Roger to play the kind of game that has a chance at beating Nadal and Roger wants to keep trying to do it his way. Until he changes strategy for Nadal (http://tennisracquetsport.suite101.com/article.cfm/federers_french_open_strategy), he's not likely to beat Nadal on clay, and if he's not careful, he might not be able to beat him on any surface. Roger's trouble with Nadal has more to do with the mental game rather than the physical.

TheNatural
05-14-2007, 04:40 PM
After last year's French open final Roche was disspaointed that Fed didnt try to attack Nadal more like he had previously in the Rome Final, where it worked very successfuly, where he had nadal 4-1 in the 5th and had 2 match points before losing. It seems like Fed hasnt been listening again lately.

I have a feeling that Roche probably wanted Roger to play the kind of game that has a chance at beating Nadal and Roger wants to keep trying to do it his way. Until he changes strategy for Nadal (http://tennisracquetsport.suite101.com/article.cfm/federers_french_open_strategy), he's not likely to beat Nadal on clay, and if he's not careful, he might not be able to beat him on any surface. Roger's trouble with Nadal has more to do with the mental game rather than the physical.

ChipNCharge
05-14-2007, 04:47 PM
Federer's new coach: Aykhan Mammadov!!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showthread.php?t=78842

crosscourt
05-15-2007, 04:14 AM
That depends on how good your 1HBH is. I can attack and hit on the rise with my 1HBH better than with my forehand. The big difference is that with a 1HBH, you hit the ball well in front of you which makes it much easier to manipulate the ball and add variety to your shots than either the 2HBH or the forehand, both of which are hit when the ball is closer and more to the side of your body.

And Puerta didn't have a problem thumping a one-hander against Nadal the year before last. It's not about having a one-hander, it's about Federer's one-hander.

Baghdatis72
05-15-2007, 04:17 AM
My bet is that Federer will spend some time to watch the match between Davydenko and Nadal in Rome and his match against Nadal in Monte Carlo to see any weaknesses of Nadal and how to exploit them. He fired Roche because he wants to keep a clear mind and think for himself.

crosscourt
05-15-2007, 04:17 AM
I have a feeling that Roche probably wanted Roger to play the kind of game that has a chance at beating Nadal and Roger wants to keep trying to do it his way. Until he changes strategy for Nadal (http://tennisracquetsport.suite101.com/article.cfm/federers_french_open_strategy), he's not likely to beat Nadal on clay, and if he's not careful, he might not be able to beat him on any surface. Roger's trouble with Nadal has more to do with the mental game rather than the physical.

I agree that a lot of Federer's problem is mental and the approach to the game on clay -- it isn't instinctive and first-strike in the way that suits Federer. Federer also has to work out a routine to combat Nadal's break point routine when serving against Federer.

tamaj13
05-15-2007, 04:55 AM
After last year's French open final Roche was disspaointed that Fed didnt try to attack Nadal more like he had previously in the Rome Final, where it worked very successfuly, where he had nadal 4-1 in the 5th and had 2 match points before losing. It seems like Fed hasnt been listening again lately.

I wonder why Federer, whom I think has one of the better minds in the game, doesn't use that mind against Nadal? I guess some guys just have your number. I have a feeling that Fed will make the adjustments though and soon. I'm picking him for the French despite Nadal's dominance.

tamaj13
05-15-2007, 04:58 AM
I agree that a lot of Federer's problem is mental and the approach to the game on clay -- it isn't instinctive and first-strike in the way that suits Federer. Federer also has to work out a routine to combat Nadal's break point routine when serving against Federer.

What is Nadal's "breakpoint routine?" I haven't seen it enough to know. Can you expand on that a bit. Sounds interesting. I'd like to look for it next time I watch.

tamaj13
05-15-2007, 05:07 AM
The problem with the Roche/Lendl relationship was that Lendl was never going to be a great volleyer, heck he wasn't even a good one IMO. Lendl made the mistake of thinking that to win Wimbledon you HAVE to serve/volley EVERY point. You don't, as Agassi proved. Lendl might have won one Wimby if he had stuck more to his own game and not gone out of his comfort zone quite so much.


Excellent point! I don't think Federer should go into strict S/V mode, but he does need to make Nadal think that he could be coming at any moment. Attacking on Nadal's 2nd serve relatively frequently would put a bit more pressure on Nadal's serve, and he doesn't have to attack by going for a winner every time. I think low slice, short and down the middle to decrease the angle a few times might be a good option off the 2nd serve if he can pull it off. He has to do something other than let Nadal get into his baseline groove. Nadal can run and hit all day long from there. We can't forget that Nadal has shown that he can make adjustments as well and is starting to apply a bit of pressure at net at times. If he develops a net game, the rest of the world is in trouble on any surface!

skiracer55
05-15-2007, 07:55 AM
Great post Skiracer.

Except for the last line prediction though. In my opinion, Federer will likely find a way to get to the finals of the French Open again. If he does, he'll find Nadal across the net from him and Nadal will take him down again.

Nadal is in incredible form and I haven't seen anyone dominate a clay court season the way he's been doing. I don't see him losing at the French Open.

...and you know what? In truth, I think you have the inside line on this one...

fastdunn
05-15-2007, 10:41 AM
it's just a match up.

federer is a human and does have weakness.

nadal's game just sinks into fed's weakness and fed can't use
all of his varieties..

Rabbit
05-15-2007, 11:36 AM
I think Wilander had it right. Federer needs to play outside his comfort level against Nads. Y'all are 100% right, it's about matchups. And the old adage "Never change a winning game, but always change a losing one" is one that Federer should take to heart. It would be one thing if Nads had tweaked him a couple of times on clay, but Nads is getting to be to Federer as Federer is to Roddick.

You never know, Roche could have said "If you're not listening to me, I'm going home" rather than Fed sending him to the house.

fastdunn
05-15-2007, 01:51 PM
I thought I read from somewhere that Roger cited "lack of communication"
as the reason for the decision. I could be wrong...

CEvertFan
05-15-2007, 04:35 PM
Didn't Lendl reach 2 Finals at Wimbledon with the help of Roche? So it's just that he failed to win one match each time. I don't see how that has much to do with the coach's failure.

I never said it was Roche's fault. He taught Lendl to volley to the best that Ivan's ability would allow, but it wasn't good enough to win Wimbledon because volleying isn't Lendl's strength. I think Lendl more than Roche thought HE needed to volley every point when I don't think he did. He was a strong, powerful baseliner who had great passing shots and could run all day and that is what he should have stuck with. Lendl could have come to net when the opportunity presented itself, and not try so hard to create the opportunity because that was something that never came naturally to him.

Rabbit
05-16-2007, 04:19 AM
I think Lendl's nerves more than anything cost him at Wimbledon. Well nerves and two pretty good grass court players. Lendl made the finals of Wimbledon twice, once losing to Boris Becker 6-4 6-3 7-5 in 1986. Along the way, Lendl defeated a couple of pretty good grass courters in Tim Mayotte and Slobodan Zivojinivic.


The next year he lost to Pat Cash (1987) 7-6 6-2 7-5. In that year, he played even better defeating a series of good grass courters qualifier a Romanian named Saceanu, Reneberg an American, Johann Kriek (then the fastest man in tennis), and Stefan Edberg who had a couple of good showings on grass.


All in all, not bad showings for a guy who said he was allergic to grass. I think the combination of Lendl and Roche did just fine.

tamaj13
05-16-2007, 05:35 AM
I see what your saying. However, i have always seen one advantage in the single handed b/hand and that is, that you are given alot more reach.

In the tournaments i play, as a junior, nearly 85-90% of my opponents have a double handed backhand which is a lot more than what i have seen in the seniors. The message from here is that, yes, the double handed b/hand is the future and i doubt there will be many more at pro level, unless coaches change players styles when there in their late teens which is unlikely.


Let's see...It was in the 70s I believe when the 2hbh came into being? Connors and Borg made it really popular. But then, I believe McEnroe did well, Edberg, Vilas, Lendl, Sampras, etc. also did well. It appears that the 2hbh does better on clay, since Vilas was one of the few that did well on that surface in the modern era. Even the great modern 1hbhs haven't done well at RG. The slowness of the surface and unpredictability of bounces favors the 2hbh because players can get to the ball better and it's easier to adjust for poor bounces with two hands on the racquet I believe. The 1hbh is a better defensive shot and the slice skids on hard surfaces, but sits up on clay allowing quick-footed players to run around and crunch forehands, or explode with 2hbhs. Two-handers are likely to continue to be superior on clay, but they aren't likely to dominate the other surfaces, Borg notwithstanding :). What do you think?

tamaj13
05-16-2007, 05:39 AM
I thought I read from somewhere that Roger cited "lack of communication"
as the reason for the decision. I could be wrong...

I read that as well. Roger is quoted as saying that he had been thinking about it for a few months. It seems the part time nature and distance of the relationship wasn't working for him. See the article (http://www.tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=78820) where Roger was quoted.

megraf
05-16-2007, 07:12 AM
I guess it's because he needs to get his butt back in action before Roland Garros and Wimbledon and the US Open.

Maybe Roche isnt doign what he's got to do. I always thought he was to quiet.
Roger needs tobe more aggreessive.
I wonder who he's going to hire now...

crosscourt
05-16-2007, 07:28 AM
Let's see...It was in the 70s I believe when the 2hbh came into being? Connors and Borg made it really popular. But then, I believe McEnroe did well, Edberg, Vilas, Lendl, Sampras, etc. also did well. It appears that the 2hbh does better on clay, since Vilas was one of the few that did well on that surface in the modern era. Even the great modern 1hbhs haven't done well at RG. The slowness of the surface and unpredictability of bounces favors the 2hbh because players can get to the ball better and it's easier to adjust for poor bounces with two hands on the racquet I believe. The 1hbh is a better defensive shot and the slice skids on hard surfaces, but sits up on clay allowing quick-footed players to run around and crunch forehands, or explode with 2hbhs. Two-handers are likely to continue to be superior on clay, but they aren't likely to dominate the other surfaces, Borg notwithstanding :). What do you think?


Kuerten had a great one hander and won RG three times, so there are some guys who can become greats on clay with a one hander. I also think that Muster had a one hander. And of course Lendl.

cc

ksbh
05-16-2007, 08:45 AM
Found this in the article-

"Federer’s can beat Nadal at the French Open if he does the following: 1) Uses a variety of spin, depth, and pace to disrupt Nadal’s baseline rhythm; 2) Employs low, short slice down the middle that decrease Nadal’s angles and forces him to hit up on the ball; 3) Forces Nadal to play at net more than he would like; 4) Attacks Nadal’s second serve and forces passing shot attempts; and 5) Serves and volleys at least 25% of the time. If the above combination doesn’t work for Federer against Nadal on clay, then he may remain the greatest player of all time without a French Open title."

LOL, like saying if Roddick could, on grass-

1. Disguise his serve
2. make spinning & stop volleys
3. Keep the ball deep on the baseline

then he could win Wimbledon! Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal.


I have a feeling that Roche probably wanted Roger to play the kind of game that has a chance at beating Nadal and Roger wants to keep trying to do it his way. Until he changes strategy for Nadal (http://tennisracquetsport.suite101.com/article.cfm/federers_french_open_strategy), he's not likely to beat Nadal on clay, and if he's not careful, he might not be able to beat him on any surface. Roger's trouble with Nadal has more to do with the mental game rather than the physical.

ksbh
05-16-2007, 09:05 AM
I read the artivle again and I have to question the writers knowledge of Tennis. 2 Points he makes that are outrageous!-

------------------------------------------------
1. Roger Federer has all the physical tools to win the French Open and to complete the first men’s tennis Grand Slam in almost 40 years, but to do so he has to get past Rafael Nadal, the greatest clay court player in the history of tennis.

2. There’s no denying Roger Federer’s genius on the tennis court. He brings as complete a game to the court as any player in tennis history. He possesses perhaps the best forehand in the game, hits his backhand with power and spin, moves with gazelle-like ease for deceptive speed, and rivals John McEnroe’s virtuosity at net.
------------------------------------------------

So Nadal with 2 RG titles is already greater than Borg who won 6 RG titles in 8 years? And Federer rivals John McEnroe’s virtuosity at net? ROFL ... the junk that some writers write!

I have a feeling that Roche probably wanted Roger to play the kind of game that has a chance at beating Nadal and Roger wants to keep trying to do it his way. Until he changes strategy for Nadal (http://tennisracquetsport.suite101.com/article.cfm/federers_french_open_strategy), he's not likely to beat Nadal on clay, and if he's not careful, he might not be able to beat him on any surface. Roger's trouble with Nadal has more to do with the mental game rather than the physical.

El Diablo
05-16-2007, 10:10 AM
Comparing eras is problematic. The game was very different when Borg played, and few doubt that Borg's game would likely not hold up against Nadal's, just as Bob Cousy, the greatest of his era among NBA guards, would be lost trying to keep up with the best guards of today. In all sports, the best players of today can do things that players of yesteryear couldn't imagine. (Lendl voiced this last year when interviewed at the US Open, saying the best players of his era couldn't possibly compete with the best of today, given the greater speed and power in the game.) Borg's streaks were amazing in their era, but don't mean he has the abilities, speed, conditioning of contemporary players. And McEnroe marvels at Fed's net play, asserting he is easily the most talented player to ever play the game.

NoBadMojo
05-16-2007, 10:40 AM
I agree....it's just pure speculation when trying to compare players from different eras.....and sometimes an era can be a short period of time in tennis. ie; I belive Samps and Fed are from diff eras as the game has changed significantly even in that short period of time since Sampras has retired.

tennis_hand
05-16-2007, 09:41 PM
Back to the main topic.

Who thinks Tony Roche initiated this separation? Tony may feel he didn't do a good job with Fed ever since Indian Wells, especially after Fed's loss in Rome. And Fed agreed with it since he was without a coach before. Tony gave Fed some of his last advice on doing well on clay before he left. So what is left for Fed is just to get all the strategies together and win.

OrangeOne
05-16-2007, 10:42 PM
Back to the main topic.

Who thinks Tony Roche initiated this separation? Tony may feel he didn't do a good job with Fed ever since Indian Wells, especially after Fed's loss in Rome. And Fed agreed with it since he was without a coach before. Tony gave Fed some of his last advice on doing well on clay before he left. So what is left for Fed is just to get all the strategies together and win.

Given Tony is now in talks with Lleyton (or so the aussie media is reporting), maybe the instigation came from Lleyton / Lleyton's camp!!!

tennis_hand
05-17-2007, 12:05 AM
Given Tony is now in talks with Lleyton (or so the aussie media is reporting), maybe the instigation came from Lleyton / Lleyton's camp!!!

highly possible.

tamaj13
05-17-2007, 07:55 AM
I read the artivle again and I have to question the writers knowledge of Tennis. 2 Points he makes that are outrageous!-

------------------------------------------------
1. Roger Federer has all the physical tools to win the French Open and to complete the first men’s tennis Grand Slam in almost 40 years, but to do so he has to get past Rafael Nadal, the greatest clay court player in the history of tennis.

2. There’s no denying Roger Federer’s genius on the tennis court. He brings as complete a game to the court as any player in tennis history. He possesses perhaps the best forehand in the game, hits his backhand with power and spin, moves with gazelle-like ease for deceptive speed, and rivals John McEnroe’s virtuosity at net.
------------------------------------------------

So Nadal with 2 RG titles is already greater than Borg who won 6 RG titles in 8 years? And Federer rivals John McEnroe’s virtuosity at net? ROFL ... the junk that some writers write!

Is there another player in the history of tennis that has come close to winning 79 straight clay court matches? That was the basis for calling Nadal the greatest clay court player to ever play the game.

It appears that some of the greatest to ever play, McEnroe, Laver, Sampras, etc. are also outrageous because they make the same claims about Roger Federer. Perhaps you haven't seen Roger play net much (and he really should play more there), but his hands are superb when he does go there.

sureshs
05-17-2007, 07:58 AM
Back to the main topic.

Who thinks Tony Roche initiated this separation? Tony may feel he didn't do a good job with Fed ever since Indian Wells, especially after Fed's loss in Rome.

Probably simpler reasons - it has been written that he was not happy with the bonuses he got from Fed.

tamaj13
05-17-2007, 08:00 AM
Kuerten had a great one hander and won RG three times, so there are some guys who can become greats on clay with a one hander. I also think that Muster had a one hander. And of course Lendl.

cc

I agree with you on Kuerten and there have been others such as Vilas, but there are exceptions to every rule. The point isn't that 1hbh players can't play on clay, but clay is more of an equalizer for players with 2hbhs.

tamaj13
05-17-2007, 08:02 AM
Found this in the article-

"Federer’s can beat Nadal at the French Open if he does the following: 1) Uses a variety of spin, depth, and pace to disrupt Nadal’s baseline rhythm; 2) Employs low, short slice down the middle that decrease Nadal’s angles and forces him to hit up on the ball; 3) Forces Nadal to play at net more than he would like; 4) Attacks Nadal’s second serve and forces passing shot attempts; and 5) Serves and volleys at least 25% of the time. If the above combination doesn’t work for Federer against Nadal on clay, then he may remain the greatest player of all time without a French Open title."

LOL, like saying if Roddick could, on grass-

1. Disguise his serve
2. make spinning & stop volleys
3. Keep the ball deep on the baseline

then he could win Wimbledon! Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal.

Huh? Federer isn't capable? I don't think there's much on a tennis court that Fed isn't capable of doing. I'd at least like to see him try.

tamaj13
05-17-2007, 08:04 AM
Given Tony is now in talks with Lleyton (or so the aussie media is reporting), maybe the instigation came from Lleyton / Lleyton's camp!!!

Wouldn't surprise me any. If a player isn't implementing what you'd like him to do, you may feel like you're wasting time and energy.

poplar
05-17-2007, 08:13 AM
Probably simpler reasons - it has been written that he was not happy with the bonuses he got from Fed.


I think it's the scheduling problem. Tony always seems very reluctant to travel.
I dont really think tony or roger would let anybody know about it if there was indeed some disagreement about bonus. So how would people know?

ksbh
05-17-2007, 08:25 AM
Tamaj,

Again, here is the point I made-

"Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal"

Please note that I said "against someone like Nadal". Nadal forces Fed into playing the kind of game he (Fed) doesn't like to play. In other words, Nadal imposes his will on Federer. It's exactly why Federer's game falls apart while playing Nadal. If Federer could do everything the writer suggests he should, he would have 5-0 record against Nadal on clay, not 0-5.

As regards the notion that there's nothing Fed can't do on a tennis court, that's just a myth. He wouldn't have a losing record against Nadal, if that were the case. There's nothing he can't do on a tennis court, alright ... but that's only against the players that lack his skill (which unfortunately just happens to be everyone but a certain Rafael Nadal!)

Huh? Federer isn't capable? I don't think there's much on a tennis court that Fed isn't capable of doing. I'd at least like to see him try.

rocket
05-17-2007, 08:40 AM
"Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal"

No-one can beat Nadal on clay so far. If anyone could to beat him on dirt, that'd be Federer. He came mighty close, closer than any other clay-court specialists IMO.

slice bh compliment
05-17-2007, 08:40 AM
Kuerten had a great one hander and won RG three times, so there are some guys who can become greats on clay with a one hander. I also think that Muster had a one hander. And of course Lendl.

cc

Absolutely. Claycourt greatness has less to do with the number of hands you use on your BH...and more to do with patience, tenacity, finesse/versatility and movement.

I know this may not have been your point at all, but how cool would that be if Guga called Federer about the position at some point within the next year or so? That's a team I think a lot of players would root for. On the other hand, I believe Guga is a friend of Nadal and his team (they have practiced together...but then again, so have Guga and Rog).

ksbh
05-17-2007, 08:51 AM
I gotta agree.

No-one can beat Nadal on clay so far. If anyone could to beat him on dirt, that'd be Federer. He came mighty close, closer than any other clay-court specialists IMO.

tamaj13
05-17-2007, 08:52 AM
Tamaj,

Again, here is the point I made-

"Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal"

Please note that I said "against someone like Nadal". Nadal forces Fed into playing the kind of game he (Fed) doesn't like to play. In other words, Nadal imposes his will on Federer. It's exactly why Federer's game falls apart while playing Nadal. If Federer could do everything the writer suggests he should, he would have 5-0 record against Nadal on clay, not 0-5.

As regards the notion that there's nothing Fed can't do on a tennis court, that's just a myth. He wouldn't have a losing record against Nadal, if that were the case. There's nothing he can't do on a tennis court, alright ... but that's only against the players that lack his skill (which unfortunately just happens to be everyone but a certain Rafael Nadal!)

I can't really argue the point you make because it is a valid one thus far. I do believe that Nadal has imposed his will on Fed, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Fed can't modify that status quo. Funny, just yesterday I was saying that Nadal is like Tiger Woods and Fed is like Phil Mickelson. It's that steely mind that Tiger and Rafa seem to have, and Phil and Rog seem to fall just a tad short on.

Roger has looked as though he doesn't believe he can beat Rafa and it shows on big points in crunch time. If Nadal starts believing that he can beat Fed on Grass (and I believe he is probably about there) then Roger will need to do something about the imposition of wills. Is that even something a player can control?

slice bh compliment
05-17-2007, 08:58 AM
....do something about the imposition of wills. Is that even something a player can control?

This is where the rubber meets the road. And a coach helps.

ksbh
05-17-2007, 09:30 AM
Tamaj ... you write some great posts man and I"m enjoying reading your posts. Keep writing, please!

This particular point you make ... "If Nadal starts believing that he can beat Fed on Grass (and I believe he is probably about there) then Roger will need to do something about the imposition of wills."

Yes, I agree. I believe as well that Nadal thinks he's probably about there. It's an intriguing prospect. When Nadal made the finals at Wimbledon last year, I wasn't entirely sure Fed would win. Though Rafa lost, he vindicated my feeling. I think he just choked (didn't think anyone could write choke and Rafa on the same line and I hope Morrissey doesn't come after my throat! :) )but overall, a very good peformance for someone with less than a dozen matches on grass! I really like to see what Nadal can bring to the court against Federer on grass this year and for that reason, I hope he makes it to the Wimbledon final.

His serve has constantly been improving, his offense has improved considerably (look at his current offensive game on clay, of all surfaces!) and self-confidence has never been short for him. I wouldn't bet on Federer winning.

I can't really argue the point you make because it is a valid one thus far. I do believe that Nadal has imposed his will on Fed, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Fed can't modify that status quo. Funny, just yesterday I was saying that Nadal is like Tiger Woods and Fed is like Phil Mickelson. It's that steely mind that Tiger and Rafa seem to have, and Phil and Rog seem to fall just a tad short on.

Roger has looked as though he doesn't believe he can beat Rafa and it shows on big points in crunch time. If Nadal starts believing that he can beat Fed on Grass (and I believe he is probably about there) then Roger will need to do something about the imposition of wills. Is that even something a player can control?

dh003i
05-17-2007, 10:47 AM
That's a laugh. Nadal beating Federer on clay.

At last years Wimbledon final, Federer blew him out. The first set, Federer simply obliterated him on. The 2nd set was close, but Federer won. The 3rd set, Nadal won. But the 4th set, Federer again pulled away, and his superiority over Nadal was just evident: it was obvious from the beginning of that set that it was just a matter of time.

Nadal did well to get to the final of Wimbledon last year -- you can't do any better than to beat the players your assigned to play against -- but that doesn't make his draw anymore impressive. With good grass-court players like Roddick again having found their game, and some up-coming youngsters also having found their game more, I highly doubt Nadal gets back to the final (unless everyone who's good is on Federer's side of the draw).

rocket
05-17-2007, 11:15 AM
Roger has looked as though he doesn't believe he can beat Rafa and it shows on big points in crunch time. If Nadal starts believing that he can beat Fed on Grass (and I believe he is probably about there) then Roger will need to do something about the imposition of wills. Is that even something a player can control?

With all the talk about young guns looking to beat Fed at the last AO, he got tough & played tough. Didn't concede a single set throughout. That's the Fed that he needs to be particularly at the French.

tennis_hand
05-17-2007, 05:13 PM
That's a laugh. Nadal beating Federer on clay.

At last years Wimbledon final, Federer blew him out. The first set, Federer simply obliterated him on. The 2nd set was close, but Federer won. The 3rd set, Nadal won. But the 4th set, Federer again pulled away, and his superiority over Nadal was just evident: it was obvious from the beginning of that set that it was just a matter of time.

Nadal did well to get to the final of Wimbledon last year -- you can't do any better than to beat the players your assigned to play against -- but that doesn't make his draw anymore impressive. With good grass-court players like Roddick again having found their game, and some up-coming youngsters also having found their game more, I highly doubt Nadal gets back to the final (unless everyone who's good is on Federer's side of the draw).

he won't. Agassi helped him.

tamaj13
05-18-2007, 07:41 AM
This is where the rubber meets the road. And a coach helps.

I think a coach might help, but only if Roger believes and trusts the coach. At this point, it's almost like Rafa is like Mike Tyson used to be or Like Tiger Woods. People just don't think they have what it takes to stand up to the guy and I believe you can see the doubt when Roger plays him. Confidence is such a huge part of the sport, any sport, and the kind of domination Roger has experienced at Nadal's hands is so unfamiliar, it would be really tough for Roger to feel confident against him.

tamaj13
05-18-2007, 07:47 AM
I'm with FSBH. That was an impressive showing for Nadal at Wimbledon last year against a guy who has been untouchable on the surface, especially given his inexperience on the surface as FSBH pointed out. I'll have to see if Nadal can bring the same kind of game he's bringing here, but I have no reason to think he won't. The guy has the mentality of all the greats. You have to rip a victory from his clenched fists with him spitting nails in your face. Unfortunately, my boy Roger is a nice guy and hasn't figured out how to put a leash on the pit bull that is Rafa.

l_gonzalez
05-18-2007, 07:59 AM
The grass at Wimbledon is not what it used to be... These days it's playing more like a medium-fast hard court, definitely slower than the US Open.

Rafa knows this and everybody knows this, so I think Rafa truly believes that he can beat Federer at Wimbledon. It's a case of mind over matter from my point of view, if you truly believe something and you have the desire that Rafa has, then anything is possible. The again there's the fear that Rafa clearly instills in Federer... you can see it in Fed's eyes, he does not like looking up and seeing Nadal on the other side, pumping his left bicep.

As far as Roddick blowing away Nadal at Wimbledon... i don't see it happening. I think it's too close to call.

dh003i
05-18-2007, 08:05 AM
Wimbledon is still Wimbledon. What I've heard is that they're actually trying to speed it up a little bit.

In any event, grass suits Federer's game and quick reflexes whether it's playing super-quick or not.

Federer is arguably the best grass-courter ever -- Sampras and Borg being the other candidates -- and will against easily beat Nadal at the Wimby final, if Nadal makes it (which is a long shot to begin with).

l_gonzalez
05-18-2007, 08:14 AM
Wimbledon is still Wimbledon. What I've heard is that they're actually trying to speed it up a little bit.

In any event, grass suits Federer's game and quick reflexes whether it's playing super-quick or not.

Federer is arguably the best grass-courter ever -- Sampras and Borg being the other candidates -- and will against easily beat Nadal at the Wimby final, if Nadal makes it (which is a long shot to begin with).

you're right, he's the best grass-court player ever... just don't underestimate the power of Nadal's desire and will to win... Hunger is what drives a player.

I'm not a Nadal fan btw... I'm all for Federer, but i just think that Nadal is exceptional.

dh003i
05-18-2007, 08:30 AM
gonzales,

Nadal had the same desire to win and hunger last year. At the final, it barely mattered.

slice bh compliment
05-18-2007, 09:20 AM
I think a coach might help, but only if Roger believes and trusts the coach. At this point, it's almost like Rafa is like Mike Tyson used to be .....


Buster Douglas, meet Roger Federer. Roger, this is Buster Douglas. Glad you two could finally meet. I'll leave you two alone for a few weeks.;-)

tamaj13
05-18-2007, 10:15 AM
Buster Douglas, meet Roger Federer. Roger, this is Buster Douglas. Glad you two could finally meet. I'll leave you two alone for a few weeks.;-)

Ha, ha. No, no, it has to be Mr. Nadal, meet Buster Douglas :D

tamaj13
05-18-2007, 10:18 AM
you're right, he's the best grass-court player ever... just don't underestimate the power of Nadal's desire and will to win... Hunger is what drives a player.

I'm not a Nadal fan btw... I'm all for Federer, but i just think that Nadal is exceptional.

I have always been a Federer fan, but Nadal is winning me over by making necessary adjustments to improve. Roger needs to show me that he's willing to do something different, that he can get Nadal out of his head. Nadal's incorporation of a net game is making a believer of me. I'm still pulling for the Fed though.

tamaj13
05-18-2007, 10:22 AM
gonzales,

Nadal had the same desire to win and hunger last year. At the final, it barely mattered.

Nadal is a better player this year than he was last year. He is more mature, more consistent, is better in the front court, and has increased his mental edge on Roger. Those are reasons why realistic Roger fans believe Nadal is a threat even at Wimbledon. Even the strategy (http://tennisracquetsport.suite101.com/article.cfm/federers_french_open_strategy) (which some have critiqued) I thought would take Nadal out might not work. Gonzalez did a pretty decent job of employing it today and he went down in straights! Of course Roger is better than Gonzalez, but...

dh003i
05-18-2007, 10:47 AM
Better on clay, but he's done hardly nothing on any other surface, including the AO, which was supposed to favor his game.

Despite his recent "slump", it would take a pretty big nut to say that Federer hasn't improved his game significantly as well. He was starting to be challenged, and he raised his game enormously at the AO, winning it without losing a set. And that's on a surface that some say gives him trouble.

Nadal simply doesn't have the natural talent that Federer does.

jmsx521
05-19-2007, 09:00 AM
Tony wouldn't have a problem finding a job at a pest-control company.
"Mr. Ro[a]che, thank you for coming... they are crawling everywhere!"