PDA

View Full Version : More on Roche/Federer/Hewitt


sureshs
05-31-2007, 01:01 PM
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21829333-11088,00.html

Roche keen to help Hewitt
Leo Schlink


HIGHLY regarded Australian coach Tony Roche yesterday broke his silence to declare his interest in coaching Lleyton Hewitt.

Roche refused to elaborate on the reasons behind his dismissal from the Roger Federer camp.

However industry sources point to Federer's reluctance to pay Roche adequate bonuses, despite winning six of his 10 grand slams under the Sydneysider, as the main reason the pair fell out.

"I have no comment on that," Roche said yesterday.

"I'm taking a break at the moment and I don't have any plans right now.

"But it would be nice to be involved with an Australian player again. Lleyton and I go back a long way.

"He's playing the French Open right now and he's got Wimbledon coming up and I don't want to distract him from that. But when he gets back home after Wimbledon, I'd like to talk to him."

Roche, 62, was fired by Federer last month after the world No. 1 lost at the Rome Masters to Italian wildcard Filippo Volandri.

The decision shocked even the Swiss critics who declared Roche too old to help Federer, despite the pair's stunning record of 192 wins from 205 matches since 2005.

Those in Roche's corner are furious with comments made by Federer since the split.

He recently told The Times in London a breakdown in communication was the prime reason for the move.

"The situation with Tony had become really complex because all of a sudden we just didn't talk any more," Federer said.

"We would spend time on the practice court and barely say a word. It was sad but people change and times change.

"I suppose it is a special thing to coach me because of the set-up I have, how I am, how I see tennis and I know, as well, what is best for me.

"For me and my game, it is hard to have a coach but I remain open to anything. I've always had the gift that if someone tells me something, I can do it in five minutes. I don't need an hour."

Roche and Federer shared a handshake agreement since the end of the 2005 season.

The partnership was based on Roche travelling about 16 weeks a year, but floundered badly after Federer's victory at the Australian Open.

It is understood Roche was quietly dismayed at the reputedly meagre bonuses Federer awarded him for continued grand slam successes.

The Federer rewards are believed to be less than what Ivan Lendl, another world No. 1 mentored by Roche, paid the Australian during his halcyon sweep through the 1980s.

Roche is rumoured to have raised the issue with a senior figure in the Federer camp but, in doing so, is believed to have alienated Federer's influential girlfriend Mirka Vavrinec.

Hewitt wanted Roche to become his coach when Pat Rafter, coached by Roche, retired in 2002, but he was unable to take up the offer because of hip surgery.

Roche has always been close to Hewitt and, with Hewitt now living in Sydney, a union between the two seems inevitable.

The Gorilla
05-31-2007, 01:04 PM
has he ever coached someone with a two hander before?

slice bh compliment
05-31-2007, 01:11 PM
INteresting article. Thanks for posting that.

Gorilla's point about Rochey not having coached a two hander might apply at a lower level [in the way a two hander would want a teaching pro who knows how to teach that type of BH]. But I believe that point holds less weight at the this level. It's in the head and in the heart. The technique is only slightly adjusted, even with a new coach.

Who's the guy who is with Lleyton currently? Young guy named Callum Beale, I believe. Is he a coach or a hitting partner basically?

Baghdatis72
05-31-2007, 01:17 PM
He wants to get back to Federer I guess and the only way he can do it is by training hard another pro so that he can beat Federer and affect his career.

sureshs
05-31-2007, 01:30 PM
Don't know what came first - the allegedly low bonuses from Federer or the silence from Roche. If Roche was just keeping silent, why should Federer pay him? But if he genuinely helped him and Federer didn't give him good money, then Roche understandably would distance himself.

So it seems that the "gentleman's handshake" approach did not work. Fed and Roche should have just signed a regular contract specifying what %tage of the winnings Roche would get, who pays for the travel expenses, etc. But at that time, it is possible both sides were reluctant to cheapen the relationship with money talk.

The point about Mirka's influence is interesting. There always seems to be a powerbroker in tennis star families whom the coach must get along with: Roddick's parents, Dad Williams, Dad Sharapova. On the other hand, when the coach and player get along well, and the family guy is sidelined, it leads to trouble too, like Justine's ex-husband.

poplar
05-31-2007, 01:56 PM
Don't know what came first - the allegedly low bonuses from Federer or the silence from Roche. If Roche was just keeping silent, why should Federer pay him? But if he genuinely helped him and Federer didn't give him good money, then Roche understandably would distance himself.

So it seems that the "gentleman's handshake" approach did not work. Fed and Roche should have just signed a regular contract specifying what %tage of the winnings Roche would get, who pays for the travel expenses, etc. But at that time, it is possible both sides were reluctant to cheapen the relationship with money talk.

The point about Mirka's influence is interesting. There always seems to be a powerbroker in tennis star families whom the coach must get along with: Roddick's parents, Dad Williams, Dad Sharapova. On the other hand, when the coach and player get along well, and the family guy is sidelined, it leads to trouble too, like Justine's ex-husband.

that's what i am thinking too.

another thing is, they've been working together for such a long time. how and when roche started feeling that he needed a bigger bonus? that gentleman's handshake deal worked for 2 and a half year and suddenly stopped working? one thing seems obvious though, when mirka is not happy, roger is not either.

nikdom
05-31-2007, 01:57 PM
I don't see how any party can be the aggrieved one here; the decision seems to be the result of a valid mutual disagreement - Roche wanted more money and Federer (or his camp) not willing to pay as much.

This cannot be grounds for any any lingering discontent, especially for Roche. If indeed he wants to coach Hewitt to get back at Roger then I think he has little wisdom for his age.

I get the feeling that coaches that have been let go off may be more vindictive because of the very nature of the coach-player relationship. Coaches are ultimately only an employee of the player and there is no guarantee that their employer will give them what they think they deserve. Its the player that gets the prize money and the sponsorships, not the coach.

Back to Roche's situation. Since we do not know the truth of the matter, we can only assume this was a matter of money as the sources noted. But think of this here - Roche will not travel like younger coaches, and Roger doesn't need *coaching* as much as pointers, practice and some encouraging words. Why would anyone pay more for something like that? Also, surely Roche would have agreed to some amount at the beginning of their relationship and now is unhappy with it.

Roche could have instead thought of it like this - I'm growing old, I don't want to travel much and I make decent money helping this guy on his quest to win the French. I'm going to get credit for it if he indeed does win the FO, so money is not very important to me. In fact, if the issue is just money, then Roche deserves blame for precipitating this at such a crucial juncture in Roger's year.

I call B.S on Roche's supposed aggrievement.

The Gorilla
05-31-2007, 02:07 PM
federer is an extraordinarily arrogant man to have made those comments.

Chauvalito
05-31-2007, 02:14 PM
federer is an extraordinarily arrogant man to have made those comments.

I support Fed's supposed arrogance (I think he is actually to nice, rather than arrogant), I really believe that his perceived arrogance is partly responsible for his current standing in the game...

Chauvalito
05-31-2007, 02:15 PM
federer is an extraordinarily arrogant man to have made those comments.

What was Fed supposed to say? Something politically correct and non-judgemental?

kingdaddy41788
05-31-2007, 02:23 PM
INteresting article. Thanks for posting that.

Gorilla's point about Rochey not having coached a two hander might apply at a lower level [in the way a two hander would want a teaching pro who knows how to teach that type of BH]. But I believe that point holds less weight at the this level. It's in the head and in the heart. The technique is only slightly adjusted, even with a new coach.

Who's the guy who is with Lleyton currently? Young guy named Callum Beale, I believe. Is he a coach or a hitting partner basically?


Callum Beale is only a hitting partner I believe; he also played for the University of Texas and graduated recently.

nikdom
05-31-2007, 02:33 PM
Original Fed interview from the Times -
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/sport/tennis/article1837739.ece

OrangeOne
05-31-2007, 02:42 PM
Fed is a world number 1. By definition, they're arrogant. They have to be, they need to be. Being 'hunted' by everyone who plays means one of two things: supreme self-confidence (read: arrogance), or losing the position.

The only two 'nice-guys' in the last 30 years to be number 1 were probably Edberg & Rafter, and even Rafter was known for speaking his mind when he needed too. The rest of the guys: they needed to know they were the best and nothing would get in their way, and that includes Fed. If he comes out and makes it look like Roche left on Roche's terms, Fed looks vulnerable. Fed even feels vulnerable, and dominant number 1's just don't let themselves feel that way!

As for him not paying enough.... gee, roche doesn't strike me as a greedy guy. Hmmm.

J-man
05-31-2007, 02:44 PM
If Hewitt and Roche got together I think it would improve Hewitt's game alot. But it's intresting because of Hewitt's antics. I wonder how long they would be able to stand it's other.

tricky
05-31-2007, 02:45 PM
What was Fed supposed to say? Something politically correct and non-judgemental?

It probably wasn't an amicable split. Not really that unusual between high profile athletes and coaches. Splitting from your coach right before a GS didn't sound good at all.

In any case, there's no point in judging what is clearly a private business matter .

sureshs
05-31-2007, 03:09 PM
one thing seems obvious though, when mirka is not happy, roger is not either.

But Roger doesn't seem happy enough to marry her.

dh003i
05-31-2007, 03:11 PM
I agree with the ppl who said Federer didn't have cause to pay Roche highly. Roche is only with him 16 weeks of the year, and just provides some broad coaching, not real intense stuff. Also, Federer doesn't really need a coach, as he showed in 2004, when he won 3 slams without one.

sureshs
05-31-2007, 03:16 PM
I don't see how any party can be the aggrieved one here; the decision seems to be the result of a valid mutual disagreement - Roche wanted more money and Federer (or his camp) not willing to pay as much.

This cannot be grounds for any any lingering discontent, especially for Roche. If indeed he wants to coach Hewitt to get back at Roger then I think he has little wisdom for his age.

I get the feeling that coaches that have been let go off may be more vindictive because of the very nature of the coach-player relationship. Coaches are ultimately only an employee of the player and there is no guarantee that their employer will give them what they think they deserve. Its the player that gets the prize money and the sponsorships, not the coach.

Back to Roche's situation. Since we do not know the truth of the matter, we can only assume this was a matter of money as the sources noted. But think of this here - Roche will not travel like younger coaches, and Roger doesn't need *coaching* as much as pointers, practice and some encouraging words. Why would anyone pay more for something like that? Also, surely Roche would have agreed to some amount at the beginning of their relationship and now is unhappy with it.

Roche could have instead thought of it like this - I'm growing old, I don't want to travel much and I make decent money helping this guy on his quest to win the French. I'm going to get credit for it if he indeed does win the FO, so money is not very important to me. In fact, if the issue is just money, then Roche deserves blame for precipitating this at such a crucial juncture in Roger's year.

I call B.S on Roche's supposed aggrievement.

If Hewitt pays more than Fed/it leaves more time for Roche to be at home, I would say it is a wise decision. Depends on what he wants.

Coaches need not always be upset. Peter Lungren and Federer are on good terms, I believe. And BG and Agassi.

Roche may be coming from the point of view of being an expert coach - someone who can value-add to an already #1. Sort of like a high-profile management consultant or auditor. The amount of time is not important - the ideas are (or so he may be thinking).

I know that Roche charged $10,000 per week for coaching Sania Mirza more than a year ago. He would not coach women, and it took special pleading from an old former Indian player and friend of Roche to get him to agree.

poplar
05-31-2007, 03:54 PM
federer is an extraordinarily arrogant man to have made those comments.

your signature suits you. i think you just copy paste some nonsense over and over again regardlessly.

poplar
05-31-2007, 04:00 PM
But Roger doesn't seem happy enough to marry her.

i read somewhere that they(roger and mirka) don't want the pressure of getting married. they are probably waiting for roger's retirement.

and mirka wears the supposedly "i love you" ring on her ring finger.

callitout
05-31-2007, 04:31 PM
federer is an extraordinarily arrogant man to have made those comments.

I'm not a Fed ***** kisser, but he'd have to be dishonest not to acknowledge that coaching him is a bit unusual. He's widely acknowledged by many pundits as the best player ever, and people often cite his brilliant feel for the game. So yes coaching him would put everyone in a "unique" situation as Fed said.

Defcon
05-31-2007, 05:17 PM
Federer is a straight shooter and calls it like it is. All you Fed haters can keep on nitpicking and whining, its not like there's a way to please you guys anyway.

99% of people who are asked something by the media end up spouting the same PC, parroted nonsense which looks good in print but has absolutely no relevance or significance. Its good to have someone with an actual opinion who's not afraid to express it!

Polaris
05-31-2007, 05:37 PM
http://www.news.com.au/heraldsun/story/0,21985,21829333-11088,00.html
However industry sources point to Federer's reluctance to pay Roche adequate bonuses, despite winning six of his 10 grand slams under the Sydneysider, as the main reason the pair fell out.
Whatever we have observed about Federer seems to contradict the notion that he will be petty about payments. The guy is known to have pursued Roche for half a year. How idiotic it is on the part of the so-called "industry sources" to think that it is a question of money?


"I suppose it is a special thing to coach me because of the set-up I have, how I am, how I see tennis and I know, as well, what is best for me.

"For me and my game, it is hard to have a coach but I remain open to anything. I've always had the gift that if someone tells me something, I can do it in five minutes. I don't need an hour." And we are supposed to think that Roger is arrogant. This might well be the case, but it could also have to do with an honest appraisal of his own phenomenal capabilities.


It is understood Roche was quietly dismayed at the reputedly meagre bonuses Federer awarded him for continued grand slam successes.

The Federer rewards are believed to be less than what Ivan Lendl, another world No. 1 mentored by Roche, paid the Australian during his halcyon sweep through the 1980s.

Roche is rumoured to have raised the issue with a senior figure in the Federer camp but, in doing so, is believed to have alienated Federer's influential girlfriend Mirka Vavrinec.
Note the highlighted words. I don't know which is worse - that a reputed Australian newspaper descends to tabloid-like journalism that is carefully worded so that it cannot be disproved, or that fans of tennis are gullible enough to use these things to further their own impressions about tennis players.

AndrewD
05-31-2007, 06:28 PM
has he ever coached someone with a two hander before?

At the pro level he has been involved with coaching people like Mirza, Nicole Bradke and Richard Fromberg, to name just a few- all users of a double-handed backhand. Other than that, he's coached numerous junior players who used two hands on the backhand (and a few less illustrious ones, like yours truly, who have a single-handed backhand LOL).


Polaris,

The Herald Sun IS a tabloid.

Tennis_Goodness
05-31-2007, 06:52 PM
Fed is a world number 1. By definition, they're arrogant. They have to be, they need to be. Being 'hunted' by everyone who plays means one of two things: supreme self-confidence (read: arrogance), or losing the position.

The only two 'nice-guys' in the last 30 years to be number 1 were probably Edberg & Rafter, and even Rafter was known for speaking his mind when he needed too. The rest of the guys: they needed to know they were the best and nothing would get in their way, and that includes Fed. If he comes out and makes it look like Roche left on Roche's terms, Fed looks vulnerable. Fed even feels vulnerable, and dominant number 1's just don't let themselves feel that way!

As for him not paying enough.... gee, roche doesn't strike me as a greedy guy. Hmmm.

Give me a break, Federer is just as nice if not nicer then them. He's the most well liked player both on the court and behind the scenes, even the players and interviewers, and everybody around the sport says this!

Cry me a river Orangeone, you whine alot on here lmao!

AAAA
05-31-2007, 07:21 PM
Give me a break, Federer is just as nice if not nicer then them. He's the most well liked player both on the court and behind the scenes, even the players and interviewers, and everybody around the sport says this!

Cry me a river Orangeone, you whine alot on here lmao!

http://www.webdesign.org/img_articles/4912/ying-yang.jpg

10 sfdgfdhtrhgjnfgjdf

The Gorilla
05-31-2007, 07:32 PM
At the pro level he has been involved with coaching people like Mirza, Nicole Bradke and Richard Fromberg, to name just a few- all users of a double-handed backhand. Other than that, he's coached numerous junior players who used two hands on the backhand (and a few less illustrious ones, like yours truly, who have a single-handed backhand LOL).


Polaris,

The Herald Sun IS a tabloid.



you were coached by roche?

seriously?

Polaris
05-31-2007, 10:00 PM
At the pro level he has been involved with coaching people like Mirza, Nicole Bradke and Richard Fromberg, to name just a few- all users of a double-handed backhand. Other than that, he's coached numerous junior players who used two hands on the backhand (and a few less illustrious ones, like yours truly, who have a single-handed backhand LOL).


Polaris,

The Herald Sun IS a tabloid.

Oh! I should not have taken the "Australia's Best Selling Newspaper" tagline seriously. Damn. :D

That puts the OP's post in the proper perspective then. Thanks for the tip. It must have been amazing to have received tips from Papa Roche.

tennis_hand
05-31-2007, 10:31 PM
I see the problem as having a WOMAN as his money manager, esp a non-professional one, i.e. not educated as or from such a background.

Come on. Michael Schumacher pays his agent, Willy Weber 20% of his earnings. Roger should learn from this lesson, rather than follow the blind advice from Mirka.

roysid
05-31-2007, 10:48 PM
I'll take Fed's words for it. Fed didn't see much benefit from Tony's coaching and fired him. And in the process, got his fluid play back.

If Roche was of benefit, Fed would have paid him millions. Money isn't issue there.

kingdaddy41788
05-31-2007, 10:57 PM
I see the problem as having a WOMAN as his money manager, esp a non-professional one, i.e. not educated as or from such a background.

Come on. Michael Schumacher pays his agent, Willy Weber 20% of his earnings. Roger should learn from this lesson, rather than follow the blind advice from Mirka.

Wow. What a stupid thing to say. Do you know anything about her education? And what the hell does the fact that she's a woman have to do with anything.

Way to show your own ignorance.

OrangeOne
06-01-2007, 12:08 AM
I see the problem as having a WOMAN as his money manager, esp a non-professional one, i.e. not educated as or from such a background.

Come on. Michael Schumacher pays his agent, Willy Weber 20% of his earnings. Roger should learn from this lesson, rather than follow the blind advice from Mirka.

Tell me you were not serious, or you were trolling. Give me some justification at all, please?

crazylevity
06-01-2007, 12:12 AM
I see the problem as having a WOMAN as his money manager, esp a non-professional one, i.e. not educated as or from such a background.
Come on. Michael Schumacher pays his agent, Willy Weber 20% of his earnings. Roger should learn from this lesson, rather than follow the blind advice from Mirka.

It is a well known fact that Mirka was on the WTA herself, before retiring due to injury.

sureshs
06-01-2007, 06:48 AM
Mirka was a top-100 player.

ATXtennisaddict
06-01-2007, 07:44 AM
Roche should just retire and go enjoy the Aussie beaches.

I guess since he didn't end his coaching by riding into the sunset with Federer, he must be wanting to regain his reputation.

I doubt Hewitt wants a part-time traveler but definitely respects Roche as an Aussie and as a coach.

slice bh compliment
06-01-2007, 08:05 AM
I re-read the article.
The whole thing is getting more and more strange isn't it?
I think the world of Roche....but....publicly soliciting Hewitt? Seems like this sort of thing that has traditionally been done over the phone or in person. Maybe email or text? But in the press? Hmm. This smacks of Tony's agent or publicist going on the offensive in an effort to 'save face'.

TheNatural
06-01-2007, 08:23 AM
I find Feds comments very odd. Mabe Fed just lost motivation after the great AO preperation and win he had with Roche. Its not easy to keep that level of traing up on his own and the motivation high after winning such a big event, then suddenly being out there alone, with only phone coaching, so mabe his motivation went down and his attidude towards the arrangement changed, and then it carried over to when Roche rejoined him again. Something like this could have happened, and if Fed didnt communicate it to Roche, things could have festered inside of him. Anyways , who knows exactly whats happened. It would be interesting to hear from Roche's point of view his interpretation of events and how training was going, and the whole comminucation thing which Federer is talking about.

Fedubai
06-02-2007, 12:11 PM
The only thing that matters now I think is whether Fed fired him for the right reason: arrogance, or something like that, will eventually lead to trouble, so hopefully that wasn't the case, or greed.

Nextman916
06-02-2007, 03:32 PM
He wants to get back to Federer I guess and the only way he can do it is by training hard another pro so that he can beat Federer and affect his career.

This isnt true, never will be true, Federer completely demolishes Hewitt. He reads his shots like its displayed a billboard 3 feet from his face. Hewitt will never beat Federer ever again in the history of his career, quote me on it.