PDA

View Full Version : Borg as Federer's coach? How about Laver?


bammbamm
06-14-2007, 12:28 PM
My first post!:p

Would this have some positive impact in his game? I felt that Connors did some good for Roddick. Maybe this could help him with the FO?

Marius_Hancu
06-14-2007, 12:39 PM
Tall order.

If what has been rumoured is true, that Mirka canned Roche as a result of him discreetingly asking for a raise, then not many Australians would get in. They would know.

Also, if Fed is as stubborn as he seems to be, the same.

Why have Roche if not being able to listen to him. Losing precious time on both sides.

Laver has never coached consistenly and isn't in the best of health.

guedoguedo
06-14-2007, 12:49 PM
I heard Fed is in talks with Jeff Tarango right now..you heard it here first

bammbamm
06-14-2007, 12:52 PM
I heard that guy had worse tantrums than JohnnyMac himself! How could that help Fed?

Jack the Hack
06-14-2007, 01:10 PM
Being a great champion tennis player doesn't necessarily mean that you will be a great coach. Connors and Roddick seem to be getting along, and Roddick is having better results now than in the 12 months before Connors started advising him. However, some of the best coaches in the game (Gilbert, Stefanki, Lundgren, Lansdorp, Bolletieri, and the late Harry Hopman) never won a Grand Slam singles title, but are good at building a player's confidence, boosting some technical aspects to their games, and giving good tactical advice. I think that Federer might be best served by such an individual. However, if Federer was going to hire a big name that could help him with his tactics in winning the French, I would go with Mats Wilander. Wilander was a multiple grand slam winner that took the French several times. He was known for his tactical genius, and could help Federer in that aspect. Wilander has also coached before (with Safin) and is the Swedish Davis Cup captain, so he has some experience in that role.

bammbamm
06-14-2007, 01:36 PM
Being a great champion tennis player doesn't necessarily mean that you will be a great coach.

However, if Federer was going to hire a big name that could help him with his tactics in winning the French, I would go with Mats Wilander. Wilander was a multiple grand slam winner that took the French several times. He was known for his tactical genius, and could help Federer in that aspect. Wilander has also coached before (with Safin) and is the Swedish Davis Cup captain, so he has some experience in that role.

You speak the truth about great coaches. On Mats, didn't he say that Fed's balls shrink when facing Nadal? I think Fed got upset with that. I would be too.

Jack the Hack
06-14-2007, 02:26 PM
You speak the truth about great coaches. On Mats, didn't he say that Fed's balls shrink when facing Nadal? I think Fed got upset with that. I would be too.

Yes, Wilander did make those comments about Federer. And you know what? He was right.

From what I've read, Wilander has a ton of respect for Federer and loves his game. However, his viewpoint is that Federer needs to come out of his comfort zone and play aggressively to beat Nadal on clay. Wilander wanted Federer to attack second serves, chip balls short, and come to the net a lot more. In other words, do whatever it takes to make Nadal hit shots from awkward places and under pressure. Doing this, Federer still might have lost. But the point was that Federer was not willing to do this, and tried to bash away Nadal from the baseline... either because he was too stubborn to realize that it was a bad strategy, or because he was afraid to try something different and fail.

The problem is that I think Federer understands what he needs to do against Nadal intellectually (especially when he describes it perfectly in the pre-match interviews), but can't seem to coax himself into actually doing it when the match is happening. In that respect, no coach is going to help him...

Gundam
06-14-2007, 02:32 PM
I think Federer understands what he needs to do against Nadal intellectually (especially when he describes it perfectly in the pre-match interviews), but can't seem to coax himself into actually doing it when the match is happening. In that respect, no coach is going to help him...

What exactly he said he would need to do?
I think someone with intelligence who can persuade this stubborn swiss. Also someone he can respect. Somehow Federer reminds me of Becker. Stubborn.

mctennis
06-15-2007, 05:30 PM
No and No on both players being his coach.

araghava
06-16-2007, 09:51 AM
I've always felt the best coach for Fed would be Annacone. He coached Sampras to 14 GS's. He was an attacking player. Fed needs to do more of that if he wants to keep winning into his late 20s. He really needs to dust of his S&V game and make points shorter.

There's a blog from Peter Bodo on tennis.com that says the same thing.

AndrewD
06-17-2007, 06:48 AM
The problem is that I think Federer understands what he needs to do against Nadal intellectually (especially when he describes it perfectly in the pre-match interviews), but can't seem to coax himself into actually doing it when the match is happening. In that respect, no coach is going to help him...

And THAT is the reason why he and Roche split - not money. Roche couldn't get him to follow through on that style of game (the style he felt gave Federer the best chance of beating Nadal on clay) and, when the student is totally closed off to what the coach is saying, the relationship becomes unworkable.

NoBadMojo
06-17-2007, 07:10 AM
First off..regardng Connors - Rodick. I think the only benefit Roddick got was in the first few weeks only, and that was more of a motivational thing than a tactical or technical thing. Roddick seeme to be amped up simply because he has Connors as his coach. I think the novelty of having Connors as a coach wore off and Rodick is now back to where he was, and in fact, further back now as the field seems seems to be passing him by..i think Roddick peter principled some while ago

As for Federer and people saying how stubborn he is..what proof do any of you have of this? Do any of you know what things he tries in practice? can any of you confirm that he hasnt tried hitting with a larger headed frame for example?, etc

It's one thing for people to say what Fed should be doing out there, and quite another for Fed to be able to execute it against Nadal. Nads is simply a bad matchup for Fed..he is lefty, unorthodox, a wall, has that ungodly spin, etc. In the meantime, Fed is still the best in the world..i would say that is pretty successful, and i can understand how the best in the world would be reticent about making changes in order to possibly beat one player.....if you take the risk of making a big change and it takes 6 months to adapt to the change, well 6 months is an eternity on the pro tour, and people get passed by in that length of time while they adjust to something new. i do however, think he can no longer get away with all the misshits.....the guy is amazing, but there is a limit to how long even Fed can afford to give away a bunch of free points and still win.

Personally, I really dont think fed needs a coach. He's tried one a few times, and has done quite well without one in the past

SuperSaiyanSonic
06-17-2007, 04:05 PM
Didn't Roddick just win a tournament?

Nuke
06-17-2007, 04:14 PM
Yes, he won the tournament, but he didn't meet any of the guys he's going to have to beat to win a GS.

nn
06-17-2007, 04:16 PM
roddick is going back..where in your back yard..people on this board sometime act as if they are head coach..

WhiteSox05CA
06-17-2007, 07:14 PM
Borg= NO WAY! That would ruin Federer's career.

Laver= Maybe,

TheNatural
06-18-2007, 01:45 AM
example of Federer's stubbornness:

Tried beating Nadal at his own game in the FO. Played the same most the match, hitting his backhand to Nadal's forehand and let Nadal find his rhythm easily with that stubborn tactic.Took 80 minutes before he hit his first slice backhand in the final. Dumped too many backhand drive returns into the net. Should have mixed it up more.

He didn't mix things up during the FO rounds. He just played 1 style of backcourt game. He should have tried different things during the rounds in preperation for the final such as short crosscourt slices and more net game to break up the Nadal's rhythm a bit.

If he wanted to outNadal Nadal, perhaps he should have done more fitness work so he could execute better when he's tired.



First off..regardng Connors - Rodick. I think the only benefit Roddick got was in the first few weeks only, and that was more of a motivational thing than a tactical or technical thing. Roddick seeme to be amped up simply because he has Connors as his coach. I think the novelty of having Connors as a coach wore off and Rodick is now back to where he was, and in fact, further back now as the field seems seems to be passing him by..i think Roddick peter principled some while ago

As for Federer and people saying how stubborn he is..what proof do any of you have of this? Do any of you know what things he tries in practice? can any of you confirm that he hasnt tried hitting with a larger headed frame for example?, etc

It's one thing for people to say what Fed should be doing out there, and quite another for Fed to be able to execute it against Nadal. Nads is simply a bad matchup for Fed..he is lefty, unorthodox, a wall, has that ungodly spin, etc. In the meantime, Fed is still the best in the world..i would say that is pretty successful, and i can understand how the best in the world would be reticent about making changes in order to possibly beat one player.....if you take the risk of making a big change and it takes 6 months to adapt to the change, well 6 months is an eternity on the pro tour, and people get passed by in that length of time while they adjust to something new. i do however, think he can no longer get away with all the misshits.....the guy is amazing, but there is a limit to how long even Fed can afford to give away a bunch of free points and still win.

Personally, I really dont think fed needs a coach. He's tried one a few times, and has done quite well without one in the past

NoBadMojo
06-18-2007, 05:39 AM
example of Federer's stubbornness:

Tried beating Nadal at his own game in the FO. Played the same most the match, hitting his backhand to Nadal's forehand and let Nadal find his rhythm easily with that stubborn tactic.Took 80 minutes before he hit his first slice backhand in the final. Dumped too many backhand drive returns into the net. Should have mixed it up more.

He didn't mix things up during the FO rounds. He just played 1 style of backcourt game. He should have tried different things during the rounds in preperation for the final such as short crosscourt slices and more net game to break up the Nadal's rhythm a bit.

If he wanted to outNadal Nadal, perhaps he should have done more fitness work so he could execute better when he's tired.

If you were to play high level tennis you would know that it is extremely difficult to redirect a high bounding ball directed to your backhand down the line with a one hander (in this case to the Nadal backhand)...additionally that tends to open up the court for your opponent
You dont know that he was tired either.

sureshs
06-18-2007, 05:41 AM
And THAT is the reason why he and Roche split - not money. Roche couldn't get him to follow through on that style of game (the style he felt gave Federer the best chance of beating Nadal on clay)

How do you know that?

sureshs
06-18-2007, 05:43 AM
If he wanted to outNadal Nadal, perhaps he should have done more fitness work so he could execute better when he's tired.

I don't think he was tired at all.

stormholloway
06-18-2007, 05:44 AM
I've mentioned this before. Why do people consider Blake a good matchup for Nadal, but Federer a bad match for Nadal? What does Blake do better than Federer? They're not that different from each other, yet Federer does everything better, save for maybe footspeed, barely.