PDA

View Full Version : Fed: "I'm definitely not going to take a coach for the French Open and Wimbledon"


goforgold99
05-14-2007, 01:11 PM
``I'm definitely not going to take a coach for the French Open and Wimbledon because I know what it takes and I don't want anybody interfering with my preparation and with my tournaments,''

Now the best: Asked about his recent losses *lol*

``But it's basically one tournament, because at Indian Wells I had a bit of a blister and then in Miami I think I played well but ended up losing. So nothing really happened in my point of view.''


A bit of blandishing :roll:

http://tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=78820

knasty131
05-14-2007, 01:18 PM
i think its a good move...i believe now we are going to see the "old" federer with some amazing shots here and there

BreakPoint
05-14-2007, 01:21 PM
``I'm definitely not going to take a coach for the French Open and Wimbledon because I know what it takes and I don't want anybody interfering with my preparation and with my tournaments,''

Sounds to me like he's saying that he's better off NEVER having a coach. I mean if he doesn't want a coach to "interfere with his preparation and his tournaments", then why does he ever need a coach at all? :confused:

Banger
05-14-2007, 01:25 PM
Uh oh Fed found out it is time to get serious, watch out. Time for the old Fed.

backhander
05-14-2007, 01:31 PM
Didn't Federer do really well for a span of like 1 years playing without a coach?

stevepidge
05-14-2007, 01:32 PM
Yeah time for the old federer alright... the one who won 67% of his matches

Marius_Hancu
05-14-2007, 01:36 PM
IMO, Fed should've fired his trainers, not Roche.

But if there wasn't a good communication lately with Roche, i.e. if Roche was telling him one thing and he could not accept those suggestions, then yes, why continue the relationship.

IMO, he's simply not in the best PHYSICAL shape, esp for clay (the best I remember him is his USO year when he beat Agassi in the SF and Hewitt in the final).

He should've worked more on power (but not exagerate, of course), in order to resist the heavy and high balls from Nadal and others there. He doesn't have enough penetration on his ball on this surface.

goforgold99
05-14-2007, 01:44 PM
He should've worked more on power (but not exagerate, of course), in order to resist the heavy and high balls from Nadal and others there. He doesn't have enough penetration on his ball on this surface.
In my opinion Fed used too many flat, hard shots against Volandri. He played completely different match against Almagro, where he had more higher top spin shots.
I was suprised to see him slugging against Volandri

Mick
05-14-2007, 02:01 PM
Sounds to me like he's saying that he's better off NEVER having a coach. I mean if he doesn't want a coach to "interfere with his preparation and his tournaments", then why does he ever need a coach at all? :confused:

Yep. I don't think he really needs a coach. At his level, he should know what his weaknesses are and what strategy he should implement in matches against different opponents. Seriously, what does Tony Roche know about Tennis that Roger Federer doesn't know ? Roche has the experience, sure but Tennis is not rocket science and Federer probably knows all there is to know about the game.

Baghdatis72
05-14-2007, 02:01 PM
There are 2 possible ways that this decision Federer made can go:

1) He gets all determined and psyched up, trains harder, keeps a clear mind and wins Hamburg by beating Nadal in the final (or at least getting very very close to beating him) and goes on to win the RG.
If this happens then he will be on a roll and win every event he enters for the rest of the year completing the Grand Slam on his way.

2) He gets all confused and unsure about himself and his future, he goes on believing that he cannot beat Nadal on clay and loses early in Hamburg (or gets battered by Nadal in the final) and then doesn't even get close to winning the RG.
If this happens then the possibility of him not winning Wimbledon and the US Open are very real and he might lose his #1 ranking before this time next year.


I know that these 2 possibilities are the 2 extremes but in this case I believe that there is no middle way for Federer. It's either the top of the hill or the bottom of the ocean and the time to determine this is now.

goforgold99
05-14-2007, 02:06 PM
I know that these 2 possibilities are the 2 extremes but in this case I believe that there is no middle way for Federer. It's either the top of the hill or the bottom of the ocean and the time to determine this is now.

well put! I also believe that Fed plays either genius, or totally crap, there is not in between with him

stevepidge
05-14-2007, 02:11 PM
Yep. I don't think he really needs a coach. At his level, he should know what his weaknesses are and what strategy he should implement in matches against different opponents. Seriously, what does Tony Roche know about Tennis that Roger Federer doesn't know ? Roche has the experience, sure but Tennis is not rocket science and Federer probably knows all there is to know about the game.


THere is always someone who knows more then you...If he knew all there was he would have already beaten Nadal on clay.

ShooterMcMarco
05-14-2007, 02:13 PM
well put! I also believe that Fed plays either genius, or totally crap, there is not in between with him

Until this year, he was able win matches with his B and C game.

goforgold99
05-14-2007, 02:14 PM
THere is always someone who knows more then you...If he knew all there was he would have already beaten Nadal on clay.

knowing and executing it are two different things. to execute the knowledge you gotta develop the feeling for the shots, if that feeling is not there you can know as much as you want, it won't help you...

knasty131
05-14-2007, 02:18 PM
Until this year, he was able win matches with his B and C game.

I think that partially had to do with a coach giving him a game plan...that game plan may have helped when he was 100% on...but fed's natural game will help him consistently win even when not performing the best...

ShooterMcMarco
05-14-2007, 02:33 PM
I think that partially had to do with a coach giving him a game plan...that game plan may have helped when he was 100% on...but fed's natural game will help him consistently win even when not performing the best...

Yeah, I see what you mean. Paradoxically, it is possible that Fed "tried too hard" to implement Roche's strategies instead of letting his natural responses and instincts dictate how he plays his opponent.

ACE of Hearts
05-14-2007, 02:44 PM
I am a Fed fan but his attitude really ticks me off.Did he really make those excuses?Everytime he loses to Nadal on the red stuff, he says the same thing, i am learning from every match, ********!!!!He has the same gameplan in each match, he stays behind the baseline which is a no-no against Nadal, especially on clay.U need to get Nadal out of his comfort levels and try new things.Maybe use the slice, i never see him use it.I also think he needs more of a net game and better serving percentages.Nadal just eats up the second serve on clay.

Baghdatis72
05-14-2007, 02:46 PM
I am a Fed fan but his attitude really ticks me off.Did he really make those excuses?Everytime he loses to Nadal on the red stuff, he says the same thing, i am learning from every match, ********!!!!He has the same gameplan in each match, he stays behind the baseline which is a no-no against Nadal, especially on clay.U need to get Nadal out of his comfort levels and try new things.Maybe use the slice, i never see him use it.I also think he needs more of a net game and better serving percentages.Nadal just eats up the second serve on clay.


Wisely spoken. I agree 100%.

noeledmonds
05-14-2007, 04:14 PM
There are 2 possible ways that this decision Federer made can go:

1) He gets all determined and psyched up, trains harder, keeps a clear mind and wins Hamburg by beating Nadal in the final (or at least getting very very close to beating him) and goes on to win the RG.
If this happens then he will be on a roll and win every event he enters for the rest of the year completing the Grand Slam on his way.

2) He gets all confused and unsure about himself and his future, he goes on believing that he cannot beat Nadal on clay and loses early in Hamburg (or gets battered by Nadal in the final) and then doesn't even get close to winning the RG.
If this happens then the possibility of him not winning Wimbledon and the US Open are very real and he might lose his #1 ranking before this time next year.


I know that these 2 possibilities are the 2 extremes but in this case I believe that there is no middle way for Federer. It's either the top of the hill or the bottom of the ocean and the time to determine this is now.

These are 2 extremes and while both are possible there is defenitly a middle ground. I think Federer is more likely to fail to win the FO but then go on to retain his SW19 and USO title. There are many other likely possibilites too, it is not as simple as a win all or lose all scenario.

edberg505
05-14-2007, 04:16 PM
I am a Fed fan but his attitude really ticks me off.Did he really make those excuses?Everytime he loses to Nadal on the red stuff, he says the same thing, i am learning from every match, ********!!!!He has the same gameplan in each match, he stays behind the baseline which is a no-no against Nadal, especially on clay.U need to get Nadal out of his comfort levels and try new things.Maybe use the slice, i never see him use it.I also think he needs more of a net game and better serving percentages.Nadal just eats up the second serve on clay.

Slicing against Nadal on clay courts is a serious no no. Because if it isn't hit low enough he will just watch the winners fly off Nadal's racquet. Take Gonzo for example. His slice worked to perfection against Nadal in AO, in the Rome final, not so much.

fastdunn
05-14-2007, 04:29 PM
I think Federer's game actually went down a notch since later half
od 2006.

In a way, he went thru half of 2006 and 2007 AO with his B game.
He still managed to win but it was very noticable.

Remember his early rounds struggles at Halle last year ?
He started to struggle more at early rounds from 2006.
He still went thru those and won just about everything.

But I think the difference is that the rest of tour now is bit better than
2006 or 2005....

Baghdatis72
05-14-2007, 04:43 PM
These are 2 extremes and while both are possible there is defenitly a middle ground. I think Federer is more likely to fail to win the FO but then go on to retain his SW19 and USO title. There are many other likely possibilites too, it is not as simple as a win all or lose all scenario.

Of course there are but I think that one of the 2 extremes will apply here (or a similar variation) because what Federer is going through is clearly mental imo and it will either raise him up or break him down.

If he wins the RG I believe that he will retain the rest of his GS too but if he doesn't win the RG then I think that he would be in serious danger of losing at least one of the 2 remaining Grand Slams.

J-man
05-14-2007, 04:44 PM
I get the impression that he's just ****ed and wants to show everyone off that he can do it with or without Roche. I think Federer can even need a coach. I wouldn't **** around to much. Roche helped you push Nadal last year in Rome to 5 sets. The coach can give you a good set of shoulders to lean on and bounce playing ideas off of. And also if you lose to Volandri I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to consult a coach.

Baghdatis72
05-14-2007, 04:52 PM
I get the impression that he's just ****ed and wants to show everyone off that he can do it with or without Roche. I think Federer can even need a coach. I wouldn't **** around to much. Roche helped you push Nadal last year in Rome to 5 sets. The coach can give you a good set of shoulders to lean on and bounce playing ideas off of. And also if you lose to Volandri I think it wouldn't be a bad idea to consult a coach.

Well it seems that Federer disagrees with you and we'll find out if he's right pretty soon.

BreakPoint
05-14-2007, 04:57 PM
THere is always someone who knows more then you...If he knew all there was he would have already beaten Nadal on clay.
Not really true. You could know how to beat someone but not be able to either follow through or not have the skills to do it.

I mean, I could say I could beat Nadal if I had a 200mph serve and had the stamina to run 3 back-to-back 26 mile marathons in a single day, but since I have neither ability, I can't beat him, although I know I could if I had those abilities. And a coach is not going to help me gain either ability. It has to come naturally.

Mick
05-14-2007, 05:03 PM
Lendl speculates on what his former coach Tony Roche may be working on with current pupil (now ex-pupil) Roger Federer:

"Tony was -- we never really worked on any technique too much -- very little, if any. But Tony was fantastic at getting my feet going well. He always was concerned about my rhythm and timing of my feet. As I just said, when I moved well, you can't -- you know it better than anyone, if you don't get to the shot, I don't care how good you are, you can't hit it properly.

"And I'm sure he's doing the same thing with Roger; we never discuss it, what he does with Roger, because it's none of my business, that's between the two of them and I don't want to get involved."

-- Ivan Lendl

source:
http://www.protennisfan.com/ivan_lendl/index.html

tricky
05-14-2007, 05:14 PM
That makes sense, considering Roche emphasizing aggressive net game. And, ironically, one of the things that's significantly slipped this year.

Timing just seems bad. If it were any other elite player, we would probably view this as a prelude to a slump or transitional period. His tone seems defensive, and it has been for much of the past 2 months.

TheNatural
05-14-2007, 06:15 PM
Volleying is one thing Roche thinks Fed should do more off. Quote from before last years AO:

"He's a good volleyer, but he can always be better at the net," Roche said. "Because he's a great athlete, it's a pity he doesn't always utilise that. But now he's got it and he wants it. That's the beauty of his game: depending on the surface, he's always got a few options."

That makes sense, considering Roche emphasizing aggressive net game. And, ironically, one of the things that's significantly slipped this year.

Timing just seems bad. If it were any other elite player, we would probably view this as a prelude to a slump or transitional period. His tone seems defensive, and it has been for much of the past 2 months.

FarFed
05-14-2007, 09:23 PM
I agree.

Baghdatis72, those were ridiculously extreme speculations, a lot can happen besides those two points. I think it may the case that you wish either of those things would happen.

These are 2 extremes and while both are possible there is defenitly a middle ground. I think Federer is more likely to fail to win the FO but then go on to retain his SW19 and USO title. There are many other likely possibilites too, it is not as simple as a win all or lose all scenario.

z-money
05-14-2007, 09:44 PM
I dont know about you all. but im tired of roger's arogance. "I need no coach!" After hearing about this earlier today i think he will lose fo and w and i will be eagerly waiting to she him fall!

FarFed
05-14-2007, 09:52 PM
Ridiculously hateful post, what's the matter?

He's doing what he thinks is best for him at this point, is that such a bad thing?

I dont know about you all. but im tired of roger's arogance. "I need no coach!" After hearing about this earlier today i think he will lose fo and w and i will be eagerly waiting to she him fall!

Virginia
05-14-2007, 10:05 PM
Federer is a "natural" player - if you try and regiment him too much, it upsets his game. I think that was what Roche was doing and finally, Federer realised it. It's a good move and I think we'll eventually see him return to his old form.

Hot Sauce
05-14-2007, 10:07 PM
Sounds to me like he's saying that he's better off NEVER having a coach. I mean if he doesn't want a coach to "interfere with his preparation and his tournaments", then why does he ever need a coach at all? :confused:

He probably means because there is not much time until the FO and not enough to fully adapt to a new coaches preparations. That's what I got out of it.

tennis_hand
05-14-2007, 10:14 PM
``I'm definitely not going to take a coach for the French Open and Wimbledon because I know what it takes and I don't want anybody interfering with my preparation and with my tournaments,''

Now the best: Asked about his recent losses *lol*

``But it's basically one tournament, because at Indian Wells I had a bit of a blister and then in Miami I think I played well but ended up losing. So nothing really happened in my point of view.''


A bit of blandishing :roll:

http://tennis.com/news/news.aspx?id=78820

it depends on your understanding of the "it" in red.

I think he meant it to be finding a new coach in this short period. This is totally reasonable.

But if you understand it to be winning FO and Wimbledon without a coach, you'll say he is arrogant.

Mick
05-14-2007, 10:22 PM
if Federer could do well at Roland Garros and Wimbledon, he would be more of a hero to me and his fans. I am sure some of you guys don't have a coach either but that doesn't stop you from improving your tennis game by learning on your own.

If he does not do well then too bad. There's always next year.

Bjorn99
05-14-2007, 10:48 PM
Net rushers are a real breed apart. Baseliners hate seeing a ball go by them. EVEN though almost everyone wins a higher percentage going up to the net. No one likes the feeling of a ball passing them. You have to really almost enjoy getting passed in a way to like coming to net.

If Federer came to net confidently at the right time, on clay he would beat nadal. Even in the shape he is in now. But I don't think he is there mentally to do it. I still think Nadals backhand can be broken down at net. With the right approach shot.

Fed should really mix up his balls to Nadal and come in on all sorts of crap.

Nadal_Freak
05-14-2007, 11:13 PM
Net rushers are a real breed apart. Baseliners hate seeing a ball go by them. EVEN though almost everyone wins a higher percentage going up to the net. No one likes the feeling of a ball passing them. You have to really almost enjoy getting passed in a way to like coming to net.

If Federer came to net confidently at the right time, on clay he would beat nadal. Even in the shape he is in now. But I don't think he is there mentally to do it. I still think Nadals backhand can be broken down at net. With the right approach shot.

Fed should really mix up his balls to Nadal and come in on all sorts of crap.
lmao. It would take a lot more for Federer to beat Nadal on clay than just coming to the net. His approaches would have to be great and consistent. Nadal's spin makes it real hard to control volleys. Nadal proves how effective it is in doubles. Federer makes sure he is in complete control of the point and about to finish before he comes to the net.

TennisBatman
05-14-2007, 11:17 PM
it depends on your understanding of the "it" in red.

I think he meant it to be finding a new coach in this short period. This is totally reasonable.

But if you understand it to be winning FO and Wimbledon without a coach, you'll say he is arrogant.

But it's quite clear from the wording that "it" means winning the FO and Wimbledon...

However, I don't think he is being arrogant here, but simple exuding his confidence. He just doesn't want to show weakness in a time when his performance is showing otherwise.

jamauss
05-14-2007, 11:30 PM
For those that think Fed was playing his "B" game at the AO 2007 - well, maybe. But you gotta admit he brought out his "A" game for his match against Djokovich, lol. That was almost the worst beatdown of the tournament.

Djokovich ****ed off the wrong guy in Federer, lol.

Bjorn99
05-14-2007, 11:32 PM
I totally agree with you Nadalfreak. I am a great admirer of nadal, and am teaching someone who is VERY NADAL like. In fact, at five years old, everyone called him Nadal junior. Except, it remains to be seen if he has what Nadal really has in spades. Cajones.

I watch Nadal play and what really freaks me out, is the way a tall guy like him(he is not that wide at all, not a steroid looking guy imo) wills himself to such RUNNING.

He amazes me, just amazes me, with the way he gets to balls. And he is not that graceful. I want to know WHO taught him the running game. WHO? I will buy whatever he sells.

I am still blown away with the running. Watch it. Man does he work out there. This guy earns every cent. He is a world champion grinder.

FarFed
05-14-2007, 11:36 PM
He is a world champion grinder.

At 20, it makes sense, but at, say, 25-26? Only time will tell.

Bjorn99
05-14-2007, 11:43 PM
I am watching him play right now on youtube and you have a point. I cannot, CANNOT see his body holding up to this incredible retrieving. And my good friend saw him dancing and carrying on until the wee hours, so he is definitely a BIT of a party animal. So we will see.

I guess my point is, ENJOY watching this incredible display WHILE he is capable of putting it on. It is amazing.

fastdunn
05-15-2007, 12:07 AM
I don't think Nadal has simple running game. We should know it by now.

I think he actually makes others run more with his lefty angles.

Somebody should measure actual running distance in Federer-Nadal match.

tennis_hand
05-15-2007, 12:31 AM
I totally agree with you Nadalfreak. I am a great admirer of nadal, and am teaching someone who is VERY NADAL like. In fact, at five years old, everyone called him Nadal junior. Except, it remains to be seen if he has what Nadal really has in spades. Cajones.

I watch Nadal play and what really freaks me out, is the way a tall guy like him(he is not that wide at all, not a steroid looking guy imo) wills himself to such RUNNING.

He amazes me, just amazes me, with the way he gets to balls. And he is not that graceful. I want to know WHO taught him the running game. WHO? I will buy whatever he sells.

I am still blown away with the running. Watch it. Man does he work out there. This guy earns every cent. He is a world champion grinder.

Hewitt was running like Nadal in his prime. But what happened to him, specifically his knees?
where is he now?

FarFed
05-15-2007, 12:32 AM
I agree, the angles he creates are terrific. But in general if you notice, if the opponent tries to hit a winner, he has the capability to chase it and merely block the ball to get it back into play, and if the approach was good (sorry to say this) he kinda waits for a mistake, or tries to finish it off himself with an incredible winner. So, if he has an attacking opponent, his running game needs to kick in. This happened with the match against Davydenko in Rome.

I don't think Nadal has simple running game. We should know it by now.

I think he actually makes others run more with his lefty angles.

Somebody should measure actual running distance in Federer-Nadal match.

PrinceO3TourOS
05-15-2007, 12:35 AM
I have the solution for Roger:

Roger needs a New "Clay Court Specialist" Coach :D
Without a Clay Court Specialist Coach he won't win the French Open.

Another thing: It's Roland Garros or Wimbledon, Roger or Rafael can win only one of this Slams, they can't win both of them, because of the time and preparation ;)

ckthegreek
05-15-2007, 03:41 AM
Make or break decision. If he does well (i.e.) semis or final in the FO choice is justified and then he goes on and wins at SW19. But if he loses in round 3 in FO the amount of pressure will be enormous because he'll have to:

a) answer questions about Roche
b) equal Borg's 5 in a row at Wimby
c) remember about Sampras losing in 96 to Krajicek at Wimby.

The wheels are very close to coming off.

In any case, enjoy the ride :)

oldhacker
05-15-2007, 04:16 AM
I think a big problem for Fed now is that his aura has been shattered a bit of late with his run of losses and now players facing him will believe they have a chance whereas before most had lost before they stepped on court irrespective of how Fed played. He was playing some pretty shakey early round tennis well before this run of losses set in but opponents failed to take the chance to beat him until Canas (a man with a second life feeling he has nothing to lose) came along and opened the floodgates. For Feds game to really flow I think his head has to be right as he play his game based on the limits of timing and fluidity. When doubts creep into his head he seems to lose that perfect timing and rhythm and shanks, misses 1st serves and UE's all over the place.

So for Fed I think it is all in the head whereas for Nadal it is all physical as his game is played at the limits of what is physically possible. If he is not feeling 100% physically (as I think was the case from Wimbledon until the clay season when he seemed to have endless niggles) his game seems to go off.

federmann
05-15-2007, 05:51 AM
I think a big problem for Fed now is that his aura has been shattered a bit of late with his run of losses and now players facing him will believe they have a chance whereas before most had lost before they stepped on court irrespective of how Fed played. He was playing some pretty shakey early round tennis well before this run of losses set in but opponents failed to take the chance to beat him until Canas (a man with a second life feeling he has nothing to lose) came along and opened the floodgates. For Feds game to really flow I think his head has to be right as he play his game based on the limits of timing and fluidity. When doubts creep into his head he seems to lose that perfect timing and rhythm and shanks, misses 1st serves and UE's all over the place.

So for Fed I think it is all in the head whereas for Nadal it is all physical as his game is played at the limits of what is physically possible. If he is not feeling 100% physically (as I think was the case from Wimbledon until the clay season when he seemed to have endless niggles) his game seems to go off.

that his aura has been shattered a bit is not "a" problem, it is the "only" problem if there is any. time will tell. but the thing is that he is not as good as you all thought. he can lose on his best day ever! believe me! of course not when his opponents think "oh i'm playing roger, he always wins! how could i be able to beat him?"

the reason why nadal and canas beat him is because they have absolutely no fear of losing when they step on court. they're guys that say "c'mon buddy, show me how you want to beat me!" so i mean for nadal it's all in the head too, and that's why he beats him. if he doesn't feel 100% physically fit, then he will lose to a lot of other players as well. but that's true for every tennis player!