PDA

View Full Version : Please Roger get a coach, you need a coach BADLY!


federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 12:05 PM
Watching Federer play Hewitt right now is a horrendous experience. I have never seen him look worse then he has over this period, not only today, but the last 5 months.

To say he got some real luck at both the French Open and Wimbledon would be an understatement. Davydenko should have beaten him in straight sets in the French Open semis, it was a big Christmas gift collapse in all 3 sets by Nikolay, wrapped in a pretty pink ribbon. Youzhny even gave him some gifts in the 4th round. It was not Roger's tennis that won him those matches, it was his aura.

Then at Wimbledon he could have easily been down 2 sets to 0 to clay courter Ferrero. He honestly had no business winning any of the first 4 sets of the final with Nadal. Only in the 5th set was he the better player.

He needs to get over his stubborn attitude and ego (I dont mean that in a bad way, having an ego is part of being a champion but you need to bite your tongue sometimes) and get a coach. He desperately needs one, it is a MUST. He will not keep getting this luck forever playing the kind of tennis he has played since March.

Zets147
08-18-2007, 12:12 PM
Roger, give me a call. I'll be your coach.

Kim
08-18-2007, 01:12 PM
...and and he should listen to you.

Don't you think he knows his age, and is pacing himself now more than ever? The guy wants longevity, should he exert THAT much effort if he can win with less? Do you think he cares for some measly titles which he has won 10000000000000000 times? He cares...for GS, period. If he is to break that record, he must survive, pace..and again have longevity.

Also, obviously you don't know Sampras' record (after all he is the guy before FED being touted as GOAT), Sampras NEVER had a year with less than 11 losses per year when he was no.1!!! And here comes FED, during his 4 years so far at No.1, he has lost a total LESS than one of Sampras's average years!!! And now the guy is 41 - 6 win/loss...and his fans aren't happy? Pls...give him a break...It seems many so called Fed-Fanatics are just spoiled tennis fans and newbies who thinks that having so FEW loses per year as FED has done so far is the NORMAL thing...Well, folks, what Fed has done, and is doing right now, IS UNRIVALED IN HISTORY.

And when he doesn't produce "magic", some "fans" call his game crap? WTH is the matter with you guys???

And it's not luck that he wins...the fact is he wins beautifully, he wins easily, he wins hard, he wins ugly, but he wins SOMEHOW..that's why he is Federer and that's what will make him even more mentally tough for a player like Nadal (who btw always wins UGLY..well, almost always) especially in th FO...in fact winning ugly may be the only way to win the French Open someday...

The point is, Fed knows what he is doing, and you (and me) don't.

David L
08-18-2007, 01:18 PM
...and and he should listen to you.

Don't you think he knows his age, and is pacing himself now more than ever? The guy wants longevity, should he exert THAT much effort if he can win with less? Do you think he cares for some measly titles which he has won 10000000000000000 times? He cares...for GS, period. If he is to break that record, he must survive, pace..and again have longevity.

Also, obviously you don't know Sampras' record (after all he is the guy before FED being touted as GOAT), Sampras NEVER had a year with less than 11 losses per year when he was no.1!!! And here comes FED, during his 4 years so far at No.1, he has lost a total LESS than one of Sampras's average years!!! And now the guy is 41 - 6 win/loss...and his fans aren't happy? Pls...give him a break...It seems many so called Fed-Fanatics are just spoiled tennis fans and newbies who thinks that having so FEW loses per year as FED has done so far is the NORMAL thing...Well, folks, what Fed has done, and is doing right now, IS UNRIVALED IN HISTORY.

And when he doesn't produce "magic", some "fans" call his game crap? WTH is the matter with you guys???

And it's not luck that he wins...the fact is he wins beautifully, he wins easily, he wins hard, he wins ugly, but he wins SOMEHOW..that's why he is Federer and that's what will make him even more mentally tough for a player like Nadal (who btw always wins UGLY..well, almost always) especially in th FO...in fact winning ugly may be the only way to win the French Open someday...

The point is, Fed knows what he is doing, and you (and me) don't.Round of applause.

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 01:21 PM
and and he should listen to you.

Of course not. These forums are just a place for all of us to express our own opinions and ideas. We know they have no impact on what the players do, however we enjoy giving our own opinions and views. So what is your point?

Don't you think he knows his age, and is pacing himself now more than ever? The guy wants longevity, should he exert THAT much effort if he can win with less?

This makes no sense. If you are pacing yourself by playing worse tennis, you end up playing longer matches and use up even more energy. Would you say struggling, and still somehow winning longer matches in Cincinnati this week is helping him preserve himself?

Do you think he cares for some measly titles which he has won 10000000000000000 times?

If he didnt he would just give half hearted efforts and lose early in more of these events. He isnt doing that, so clearly this is not the case.

He cares...for GS, period. If he is to break that record, he must survive, pace..and again have longevity.

Read all of the above and you will see why what he is currently doing has nothing to do with this.

Also, obviously you don't know Sampras' record (after all he is the guy before FED being touted as GOAT), Sampras NEVER had a year with less than 11 losses per year when he was no.1!!! And here comes FED, during his 4 years so far at No.1, he has lost a total LESS than one of Sampras's average years!!!

Well the fact todays tour is more full of chokers and players who lack gumption is looking more painfully true all the time. Since at the moment Federer is almost getting by, as much as he is, on smoke and mirrors, and his aura.

And it's not luck that he wins...

Aura, players letting him off the hook, his getting away with squandering opportunities and increasingly sloppy play, call it whatever you want then.

Rafa freak
08-18-2007, 01:23 PM
my dad said he would like to teach federer hes been a tennis coach for
longer than federer has been alive.

Michelangelo
08-18-2007, 01:28 PM
Why bother? I believe his era will end pretty soon.

nickb
08-18-2007, 01:29 PM
my dad said he would like to teach federer hes been a tennis coach for
longer than federer has been alive.

I dont think there will be much your dad can teach Roger Federer...

Kim
08-18-2007, 01:34 PM
He is pacing himself BUY NOT PUTTING 100% effort in retrieving every ball, in smashing every forehand, etc etc. A short intense workout is more draining than a long but relatively tame workout. That's the point.

Just go be a Nadal or Djoko fan. Leave Fed alone. You don't like his game at the moment and diss him, but sing all praises when he gets back to his magic? Exactly what the movie THE FAN expounds on.

lethalfang
08-18-2007, 01:38 PM
When you have 11 Grand Slam titles, those Masters Series seem small and irrelevant, and you don't take them much more seriously than an exhibition.

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 01:41 PM
When you have 11 Grand Slam titles, those Masters Series seem small and irrelevant, and you don't take them much more seriously than an exhibition.

I am not just talking about his play in the Masters events. I am talking about his play in the Grand Slams too. His play in the Masters is actually the same way he is playing in the Grand Slams. People just look at his results, they dont analyze where his current game is going. As I mentioned he got quite lucky at both the French Open and Wimbledon this year, to reach what he did at each.

Kim
08-18-2007, 01:44 PM
That shows what Fed is, even half-heartedly, he wins...now isn't that a way to demoralize your opposition?

I remember Fed "joking" at the Australian Open that he came not to play well and lose, but to play bad and still win.

The point is, he more than any player in history, is doing his job. PERIOD.

Kim
08-18-2007, 01:47 PM
Another thing that needs pacing is the mental aspect of the game, the motivation. A man cannot be as focused all the time and not get bored.

Challenger
08-18-2007, 01:59 PM
He is pacing himself BUY NOT PUTTING 100% effort in retrieving every ball, in smashing every forehand, etc etc. A short intense workout is more draining than a long but relatively tame workout. That's the point.

Just go be a Nadal or Djoko fan. Leave Fed alone. You don't like his game at the moment and diss him, but sing all praises when he gets back to his magic? Exactly what the movie THE FAN expounds on.

I wouldn't call myself a Fed fan, first and foremost, but I do enjoy watching him play. I think the reason most "fans" are criticizing him of late, is because they're well aware of what he's capable of. I find that I no longer care if he wins or loses, since I've already seen him do it all. I watch him play because I want to see once-in-a-generation greatness...and when I get anything less, I feel somewhat disappointed and short-changed.

Is that a sign of being spoiled? I admit, yes. But at the same time, what's wrong with expecting an awe-inspiring performance from a player you know can come up with it routinely?

catspaw
08-18-2007, 02:17 PM
I am not just talking about his play in the Masters events. I am talking about his play in the Grand Slams too. His play in the Masters is actually the same way he is playing in the Grand Slams. People just look at his results, they dont analyze where his current game is going. As I mentioned he got quite lucky at both the French Open and Wimbledon this year, to reach what he did at each.

Don't all players have a little bit of luck here and there? Is it something that Federer isn't allowed, but everyone else is? And I'm not sure what you mean by luck here anyway. At Wimby he had a tricky match against Ferrero having been laid up for a week because of the rain and Haas's withdrawal. If he ever deserved to win a Wimby final for sheer determination when the chips were down, it was this year - luck doesn't come into it. And, as for the French semi-final against Davydenko, yes, it certainly could have gone the other way, but it didn't; if Davy can't get his act together when it matters, and Fed can, what's your point - isn't that what tennis is all about?

So he needs a coach? Why? To point out that his game's a bit shabby at the moment? I think he knows that.

David L
08-18-2007, 02:19 PM
I wouldn't call myself a Fed fan, first and foremost, but I do enjoy watching him play. I think the reason most "fans" are criticizing him of late, is because they're well aware of what he's capable of. I find that I no longer care if he wins or loses, since I've already seen him do it all. I watch him play because I want to see once-in-a-generation greatness...and when I get anything less, I feel somewhat disappointed and short-changed.

Is that a sign of being spoiled? I admit, yes. But at the same time, what's wrong with expecting an awe-inspiring performance from a player you know can come up with it routinely?Well, evidently he cannot come up with it as routinely as he would like, otherwise he would. As the most talented player on tour, he often comes through on top, but he is playing players who are very talented themselves. I still don't understand why people just expect him to roll over the opposition like they are amateurs. He makes it look easy sometimes, but it is'nt and some days are better than others. There are imponderables that are sometimes out of his control.

c_zimma
08-18-2007, 02:45 PM
Federer is pacing himself I think. I mean, when you look at him play, and then you look at Nadal, there is an obvious difference in energy being expended. And Roger is still on top of the tennis world. So I think we should let him do his thing however he feels necessary.

J-man
08-18-2007, 03:11 PM
I'd agree that he needs a coach. A second pair of eyes is always good for any player no matter who they are. But in the Pro's Match Results section someone posted an arcticle about how Roger feel's fine not having a coach at this time and is not an a hurry to find one.

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 03:11 PM
I dont see how anyone can deny Federer got lucky in his French Open semifinal with Davydenko, and his Wimbledon final with Nadal. Davydenko had a chance to close out every one of the 3 sets, and visibly choked closing out all 3 sets. Nadal outplayed Federer in each of the first 4 sets of the Wimbledon final, but Federer was able to come up with enough crucial serves to squeek out holds and then won tiebreaks to win 2 of the 4 sets.

tennispro11
08-18-2007, 03:19 PM
Watching Federer play Hewitt right now is a horrendous experience. I have never seen him look worse then he has over this period, not only today, but the last 5 months.

To say he got some real luck at both the French Open and Wimbledon would be an understatement. Davydenko should have beaten him in straight sets in the French Open semis, it was a big Christmas gift collapse in all 3 sets by Nikolay, wrapped in a pretty pink ribbon. Youzhny even gave him some gifts in the 4th round. It was not Roger's tennis that won him those matches, it was his aura.

Then at Wimbledon he could have easily been down 2 sets to 0 to clay courter Ferrero. He honestly had no business winning any of the first 4 sets of the final with Nadal. Only in the 5th set was he the better player.

He needs to get over his stubborn attitude and ego (I dont mean that in a bad way, having an ego is part of being a champion but you need to bite your tongue sometimes) and get a coach. He desperately needs one, it is a MUST. He will not keep getting this luck forever playing the kind of tennis he has played since March.

LOL! He keeps winning right. He needs a coach because after he got rid of Roche he was winning more without a coach than with one. You bring up the Wimbledon final. He won that too, didn't he. I think you need to get over yourself and quit thinking that Federer should listen to you. He is obviously doing fine.

tennispro11
08-18-2007, 03:21 PM
I think you wanted Federer to win so bad, you are talking crap. Having serve getting you out of trouble is part of his greatness, not luck. He got out played in the 4th set. He had no match play for 5 days, no warm up event, never got to his top grass level, but still won. That's a champion. He played great in the last two sets against Hewitt today if you don't care who wins. People like you expect Federer to win every match easy. Well, get used to. It is not going to happen. He can't play top level tennis all the time, and he doesn't need to. If he does, he would have a very short tennis career!

Well said! I am always amazed at how Federer can win even when he isn't playing his best. It is simply terrific!

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 03:23 PM
He played great in the last two sets against Hewitt today if you don't care who wins.

Great?!? The two of them were dumping easy errors and trading chokes back and forth. If that is great tennis I would hate to see what a slopfest would look like.

ninman
08-18-2007, 03:24 PM
I dont see how anyone can deny Federer got lucky in his French Open semifinal with Davydenko, and his Wimbledon final with Nadal. Davydenko had a chance to close out every one of the 3 sets, and visibly choked closing out all 3 sets. Nadal outplayed Federer in each of the first 4 sets of the Wimbledon final, but Federer was able to come up with enough crucial serves to squeek out holds and then won tiebreaks to win 2 of the 4 sets.

Did you watch the same match as everyone else? We could argue that Safin was lucky back in 2005 when we beat Federer having had to save match points in the fourth set. Tennis is all about coming up with the right shot at the right time and Federer did it.

Yes he's been playing badly all week, but guess what HE'S IN THE FINAL. Federer knows what he has to do to win, so we should all just trust that Federer knows what's best for him and leave it at that. In 2004 he won 3/4 GS without a coach and took 11 titles that year, where he played some outstanding tennis. In 2005 when he won this title I saw him play crap all week, somehow made the final, then won in straight sets.

Tennis is not about what happens when you play good, it's about trying to win when you are playing bad, and that's what Federer has been doing all week. Stop giving him such a hard time, 8 finals from 11 events played is a brilliant effort.

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 03:27 PM
Did you watch the same match as everyone else? We could argue that Safin was lucky back in 2005 when we beat Federer having had to save match points in the fourth set. Tennis is all about coming up with the right shot at the right time and Federer did it.

Federer did not come up with shots at the right moment in that French Open semi with Nikolay to get out of trouble, not many of them anyway. Davydenko got tight and was a different player then the rest of the match. That was obvious watching.

Yes he's been playing badly all week, but guess what HE'S IN THE FINAL.

Thanks to the fact 3 of the top 4 were out early with injury or upset. That plus guys seem to be scared at the prospect of beating a Federer ripe for the picking. Right now his aura is saving him alot, but that wont continue if he doesnt start to play better.

Fumoffu
08-18-2007, 03:28 PM
I dont see how anyone can deny Federer got lucky... Federer was able to come up with enough crucial serves to squeek out holds and then won tiebreaks to win 2 of the 4 sets.

Right, so by being able to come up with good shots he is lucky. I guess he is the luckiest player in history, being able to come up with great shots at crucial moments.. Wait.. Don't they call people like those champions?

Please, you're just piffed that he's able to win without playing like a god. That alone is what separates him from the pack, that is why he's ranked 1. He's just that much better. I won't say as to whether or not he's pacing himself or whatnot but I will say he WINS, regardless of what happens during a match the only thing that is recorded in the history books is the WINS.

natasha_nana
08-18-2007, 03:29 PM
He may need a coach - but I would not base that on his Cincy performance...as you may remember, Roger has NEVER played well at Cincy.

In 2005 he won the tournament with a C- performance all through...getting taken to 3 sets by Ginepri FFS.

Also, last year in Halle he by no means won the tournament on a stellar performance...but we all know what happened at Wimbledon that year.

So I would personally reserve the 'Roger needs a coach' talk till after the USO.
Let's see how it goes there first.

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 03:32 PM
Right, so by being able to come up with good shots he is lucky. I guess he is the luckiest player in history, being able to come up with great shots at crucial moments.. Wait.. Don't they call people like those champions?

What I am saying is Nadal was so clearly the better player in the first 4 sets f the final, that regardless that I was cheering for Federer, it still seemed the wrong player probably wrong. Commentators on the match basically said the same thing. After the first early exchange of breaks, Federer was struggling so much to hold, while Nadal was crusing on his own serve pretty much. So yes Federer was pretty lucky to somehow split the first 4 sets the way the overall course of play between the two was.

I did not say all of his wins were luck. I am saying the last 5 months his tennis has been by far the worst since he became #1, his play on break points has also been a disaester in many ways, and he has gotten luck in his last 2 slams I feel.

anchorsteamer
08-18-2007, 03:34 PM
Why does having a coach necessarily help? Most coaches are glorified traveling mates that warm you up and keep you entertained on the road...why does Federer need that? Not saying there aren't good coaches out there, but just making a blanket statement that he needs a coach is dumb. It's also not getting lucky to hit big serves on big points...its what being good is...

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 03:34 PM
I didn't realize you post crap posting like this before. It was a great match in the last two sets. I guess except for you.

Just look at where Federer was last year this time. He struggled mightly at Toronto, winning 3 or 4 consecutive 3-set matches, then played badly against PS and AM at Cincy. Guess what, he got undefeated the rest of the year. He is playing so much better now than he was at this time last year.

At Toronto last year I thought he was playing very well. The guys that took him to 3 sets really played well to take him to 3 sets, but Federer was still looking pretty good with his own game. He does not look good at all here in Cincinatti, less good then Toronto last year. His struggles in Cincinnati are more with his own game then his opponents, unlike Toronto last year. Cincinnati last year he was tired so that is a write off.

Even if you honestly feel todays match with Hewitt was a good match, you cant honestly say he looked good in the matches before that like the ones vs Baghdatis or Almagro. Also his play on break points is very poor this year, was again today vs Hewitt, was vs Nadal in the French Open final. Last year his play on break points was much more solid.

The tennis guy
08-18-2007, 03:36 PM
Cincinnati last year he was tired so that is a write off.

Crap again. He is playing more matches this summer than last year, but he was tired last year?

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 03:38 PM
Crap again. He is playing more matches this summer than last year, but he was tired last year?

Last year, as you yourself said, he had 4 3 setters at the Rogers Cup, his final 4 matches there, then another in the first round of Cincinnati. So it becomes apparent why he would be too tired for the Murray match. He also looked too tired in that match to really play.

The tennis guy
08-18-2007, 03:42 PM
Last year, as you yourself said, he had 4 3 setters at the Rogers Cup, his final 4 matches there, then another in the first round of Cincinnati. So it becomes apparent why he would be too tired for the Murray match. He also looked too tired in that match to really play.

He won in straight set at Cincy first round last year. He played more matches this summer, had 3 3 setters already. Do your math.

catspaw
08-18-2007, 03:57 PM
I think federerfanatic is almost TOO much of a fed fan to be able to see the wood for the trees. I'm a huge Fed lover and admit that I found the Hewitt match incredibly nerve-wracking to watch. Every UE is torture, every failure to convert a BP nothing less than tragic. But, if you watch the match again when you know the result, you can appreciate objectively how good the match actually was, how well Hewitt played, how Federer came up with staunch defence when necessary, and how well he eventually played in the 3rd set to get the win. He quite simply refused to lose. If he'd buckled under the pressure, I'd be worried, but he didn't, so I'm not. This need-for-a-coach business is someone trying to find reasons for Fed's lack of perfection this year. He's human, that's all - you can't play at being Superman all the time.

J-man
08-18-2007, 04:42 PM
I agree Federer is only human and that he is not always going to play well or perfect (winning all of his matches having less than 5 losses ect....). But I still think having a coach or at the least a part time to coach (someone that doesn't need to travel everywhere with him) is a good idea. Espically when Federer hit a slight rough patch in his tennis career.

Kim
08-18-2007, 04:58 PM
Federerfanatic, if he had been a Sampras fan, would long have cursed Sampras and 10000000000 of his relatives to Sampras' 10000000000th generation for having played so "crappy" while winning 14 Slams. He would also have cursed Laver by the way he "crappily" won those 2 Grand Slam SLAMS, if he had been a Laver fan.

People like this "THE FAN" prototype are pathetic. PLS watch THE FAN, ok?

Kim
08-18-2007, 04:59 PM
So again, troll list grows longer, ignore list grows longer.

NamRanger
08-18-2007, 05:13 PM
I agree Federer is only human and that he is not always going to play well or perfect (winning all of his matches having less than 5 losses ect....). But I still think having a coach or at the least a part time to coach (someone that doesn't need to travel everywhere with him) is a good idea. Espically when Federer hit a slight rough patch in his tennis career.


This is probably his worst year yet. At least in 05 he could say that he lost to a red hot Safin, Nadal, and Nalbandian (at the TMC). Otherwise, he dominated the USO, Wimbledon, and every other major tournament out there. This year he's lost matches to Canas, Volandri (right....), Djokovic, and Nadal. I mean, seriously, two of those names really don't belong on that list. His stubborness will eventually be his downfall.

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 05:20 PM
This is probably his worst year yet. At least in 05 he could say that he lost to a red hot Safin, Nadal, and Nalbandian (at the TMC). Otherwise, he dominated the USO, Wimbledon, and every other major tournament out there. This year he's lost matches to Canas, Volandri (right....), Djokovic, and Nadal. I mean, seriously, two of those names really don't belong on that list. His stubborness will eventually be his downfall.

Thank you. Someone else notices what I have been noticing. He is playing significantly worse overall then he has since he became #1 right now, except for his serve.

Yes he is very stubborn. Nobody is too good, even if you are someone some people call the best player ever, to hear others ideas and ways to improve. That is where a coach comes into play, and when you are both struggling and become stagnant, it is even more of a benefit/need.

ninman
08-18-2007, 05:45 PM
You know what you're right Federer does need a coach, I mean he won the Aussie Open without dropping a set, then made the final of the French Open, then won Wimbledon, I mean what a crap player he is. If that's what it means to be ****, then every player on tour is just awful, I mean hell the number two only made 2 GS finals, he must be crap and all.

jukka1970
08-18-2007, 05:59 PM
Watching Federer play Hewitt right now is a horrendous experience. I have never seen him look worse then he has over this period, not only today, but the last 5 months.

To say he got some real luck at both the French Open and Wimbledon would be an understatement. Davydenko should have beaten him in straight sets in the French Open semis, it was a big Christmas gift collapse in all 3 sets by Nikolay, wrapped in a pretty pink ribbon. Youzhny even gave him some gifts in the 4th round. It was not Roger's tennis that won him those matches, it was his aura.

Then at Wimbledon he could have easily been down 2 sets to 0 to clay courter Ferrero. He honestly had no business winning any of the first 4 sets of the final with Nadal. Only in the 5th set was he the better player.

He needs to get over his stubborn attitude and ego (I dont mean that in a bad way, having an ego is part of being a champion but you need to bite your tongue sometimes) and get a coach. He desperately needs one, it is a MUST. He will not keep getting this luck forever playing the kind of tennis he has played since March.

Well for starters, you'd probably do better with a different sign in name, if you actually believe even half of what you wrote.

Federer has been doing just fine without a coach. Let's see, he's got two grand slams so far, yet again with 11 grandslams and counting. He may not have won in Canada, but he was the runner up. And right now Federer has done a hell of a lot better in Ohio, then he usually does. 2nd round loss last year. And if you look over the years that he's played at the masters in Ohio, he has won it once, and all the other years he was out the 1st or 2nd round.

Part of being an excellent player, is being able to get out of tough situations. And this so called aura you talk about, what it most like is, is Federer making it look like he got a gift. I have no idea what you're qualifications are in tennis, but unless you are one of the top 10 players in the ATP, signing on here under a pseudonym, I doubt you have the first clue on what Federer needs.

I certainly have no idea what he needs, but from his statistics, he doesn't seem to need a coach. What do you expect from him, only 4 losses each year, year after year? Here's a news flash, no one can keep that up year after year, it's called being human.

Jukka

ninman
08-18-2007, 06:01 PM
Yeah maybe he's Nadal trying to get us all riled. If you are Nadal guess what buddy I think you're going to go out in the 3rd round if you're lucky, ha how do you like me now?

jukka1970
08-18-2007, 06:05 PM
I think you wanted Federer to win so bad, you are talking crap. Having serve getting you out of trouble is part of his greatness, not luck. He got out played in the 4th set. He had no match play for 5 days, no warm up event, never got to his top grass level, but still won. That's a champion. He played great in the last two sets against Hewitt today if you don't care who wins. People like you expect Federer to win every match easy. Well, get used to. It is not going to happen. He can't play top level tennis all the time, and he doesn't need to. If he does, he would have a very short tennis career!

Excellent response and points, now hopefully the OP will learn the difference between luck and great playing

Jukka

jukka1970
08-18-2007, 06:09 PM
Federer did not come up with shots at the right moment in that French Open semi with Nikolay to get out of trouble, not many of them anyway. Davydenko got tight and was a different player then the rest of the match. That was obvious watching.

You can't even make a point without contradicting yourself. First you say that Federer didn't come up with shots when he needed them, then you say, oh I meant to say not many. Give it a rest already.


Thanks to the fact 3 of the top 4 were out early with injury or upset. That plus guys seem to be scared at the prospect of beating a Federer ripe for the picking. Right now his aura is saving him alot, but that wont continue if he doesnt start to play better.

More BS, the same could be said about anyone. The point is, that Federer is still finding a way to make it to the finals, and in quite a few cases winning the tournament. As someone else said, he didn't play for 5 straight days at Wimbledon, and hadn't played anyone even close to Nadal's level of play. And even with that, he still found a way to grind it out and win his 5th Wimbledon in a row. And he did it without a coach. So where is your logic, absolutely nowhere apparently.

Jukka

Kim
08-18-2007, 06:13 PM
Again, are you guys tennis newbies or what???? Sampras LOST TO ABSOLUTE NOBODYS ALL THE TIME, and FED loses every now and then, and he's a goner?

By God.... according to your standards Sampras was always lucky because he used his serves to get out of trouble.

THE GUY (FED) WINS. PERIOD.

kingkong
08-18-2007, 06:19 PM
you people don't seem to undertsand what a coaches role actually is:

(interview with sampras and agassi, new york magazine 1995,(probably the best bit of tennis writing ever imo, demonstates the different roles coahes have for different players)



"[expletive] Rusedski!" he blurts out, for the sheer joy of it; later, when I
remind him how frequently Brad Gilbert, Agassi's notoriously gregarious coach,
brings up the fact that Gilbert is four and four in the eight times he met
Sampras as a player, he says, "[expletive] Brad!" He tries to point out the
meaninglessness of the statistic. "I mean, this [expletive] guy here is 1-0
against me," Sampras says, pointing to Annacone, who is wading in the shallow
end with a silly grin, not quite sure whether to look proud or insulted. "You
want to humble Brad, just ask him about the Slams," says Sampras, who is well
aware that, despite the $5 million in prize money that Gilbert has earned in a
long career as a sort of overachieving bottom-feeder, he never advanced beyond
the quarterfinals in any of the four major tournaments. "Just ask him about the
Slams."

I pass along something that Pete Fischer, Sampras's first and most
influential coach, recently told me: Gilbert, Fischer believes, has the
greatest mind in tennis and he was always Fischer's first choice to coach
Sampras if he couldn't do it himself. Sampras rolls his eyes. "Brad's got a
good heart, but I couldn't take all that talking, discussing every angle, every
shot," he says. "Whenever we used to practice together, I'd say, 'Brad, would
you just shut the [expletive] up for 30 minutes.' "
"Brad's got a lot to offer," Annacone throws in graciously.
"Yeah, too much," says Sampras.

Sampras has gone out of his way to give credit to Tim Gullikson for
helping get him from No. 5 in the world to No. 1, and his feelings were
painfully obvious when, after learning that Gullikson had cancer, Sampras
broke down and cried on the court during his semifinal match in the Australian
Open. But since splitting with Fischer when he was 18, Sampras has seemed to
value his coaches more for their company than their wisdom. When Annacone, still
wading nearby, starts expounding tennis theory, saying that a player is always
plotting to take away the amount of time his opponent has to return a shot,
either by hitting the ball hard or hitting it early, Sampras, without taking
his eye off the little poolside basketball hoop he's shooting at, just says,
"Nonsense."


and

What most impressed Agassi was how little Sampras leans on his coaches.
(Agassi is now coached by Brad Gilbert, who helped him climb from No. 32 to No.
1 in a little more than a year; Sampras's coach is Paul Annacone, who replaced
Tim Gullikson seven months ago when Gullikson withdrew to battle brain cancer,
for which he is now undergoing chemotherapy.) "Pete said, 'Regardless of what
Brad's done for you, you're the one who has to go out there and do it,' " Agassi
told me in the restaurant. "I said, 'I totally agree with you, but he's given me
a lot of important insights." He said, 'Like what?' And I was like, 'Well, he's
directed me here and directed me there, and given me a game plan.' And Pete was
shocked to think that's what a coach does. All he knows is someone who makes
sure his toss is on line and helps with the fundamentals on some very basic
level. But nobody tells Pete how to play. Me, it's the opposite. I have all the
shots, but what the hell do I do with them?"



Andre Agassi, on the other hand, tends to run his psyche like an open house,
particularly if a visitor can help him play better tennis. On an early Friday
afternoon in the middle of this year's Wimbledon tournament, Agassi and Gilbert
were working out on the grass practice courts at Aorangi Park. In his first two
overpowering wins, against Andrew Painter and Patrick McEnroe, Agassi had hit
two or three stone-cold service return winners each game, often sending the ball
back 20 miles per hour faster than it had arrived. But for Agassi's third-round
opponent, David Wheaton, Gilbert was preaching the rewards of moderation,
and Agassi was listening intently.

"If you rip it, he just keeps charging in, where all he has to do is react,"
Gilbert explains. "Slow him down, make him hesitate,
and he's got to think about it. That's when he gets nervous." Instead of whaling
on the ball, Gilbert says, Agassi should hit low, dipping topspin returns that
will freeze Wheaton. Gilbert serves a half-dozen balls and Agassi responds as
instructed.


you realise from this next excerpt how long agassi had his eye on Steffi Graf, as well as just how detailed Gilberts strategy was, and just what Paul Annacones role as Pete Sampras's 'coach' actually was

Now, as Gilbert and Agassi are nearing the end of their workout at Aorangi
Park, still plotting how to knock off David Wheaton, Agassi asks, "What
percentage should I serve to his forehand?" as if he'll be toting a calculator
in his shorts. They keep hitting as Gilbert spews out a steady stream of
exhortation and non sequitur. "When the bell goes off, you got to come strong!"
he shouts across the net. And: "Steffi's looking thin, she's looking
razor-thin."
And: "I swear, I couldn't get that broccoli soup out of my mind
last night," to which Agassi responds, "Yeah, that can give you a foot cramp."
The talk always returns to strategy, though, and Agassi can't get enough.

espite the nearly miraculous results, there is something about Gilbert's
nonstop coaching and Agassi's rapt attention that is just a little much,
suggesting that the whole exercise serves more as an emotional balm than a
point-for-point battle plan. This seems especially true when, a few minutes
later, Gilbert and Agassi are replaced on the same court by Paul Annacone and
Pete Sampras, who, in their own practice session, casually hit for 45 minutes
without exchanging a single word.



obviously federer is more like sampras than agassi.You can see how without a coach, fter a while his backhand starts to fall to peices technically, (perhaps because), his footwork and positioning get sloppy.

kingkong
08-18-2007, 06:30 PM
this is the link to the article BTW

http://www.geocities.com/hovav13/art-A_90s_Kind_of_Rivalry.html

NamRanger
08-18-2007, 07:25 PM
Again, are you guys tennis newbies or what???? Sampras LOST TO ABSOLUTE NOBODYS ALL THE TIME, and FED loses every now and then, and he's a goner?

By God.... according to your standards Sampras was always lucky because he used his serves to get out of trouble.

THE GUY (FED) WINS. PERIOD.


Sampras lost to nobodies in smaller events, but we know Federer takes master events seriously (at least Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, and the bigger well known ones). He lost to Canas (twice) and Volandri, and nearly lost to Roddick at the end of 06, and has nearly lost alot of matches to players of much lesser calibur then he is this year. Alot of close calls for Federer this year.


Whenever Federer lost before he lost to quality players and talented that were on hot streaks, such as Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Murray, and Nadal. Honestly the only exception that I can think of is Tomas Berdych, but we all know he's a pretty good player, top 20 right now, but could be so much more. Now he's losing to players WELL below his skill level. I mean for crying out loud, Volandri? Struggling against Almagro on hardcourts? Seriously, if you can't see why Federer is going down hill, then you are just plain ignorant.

tennispro11
08-18-2007, 07:29 PM
Sampras lost to nobodies in smaller events, but we know Federer takes master events seriously (at least Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, and the bigger well known ones). He lost to Canas (twice) and Volandri, and nearly lost to Roddick at the end of 06, and has nearly lost alot of matches to players of much lesser calibur then he is this year. Alot of close calls for Federer this year.


Whenever Federer lost before he lost to quality players and talented that were on hot streaks, such as Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Murray, and Nadal. Honestly the only exception that I can think of is Tomas Berdych, but we all know he's a pretty good player, top 20 right now, but could be so much more. Now he's losing to players WELL below his skill level. I mean for crying out loud, Volandri? Struggling against Almagro on hardcourts? Seriously, if you can't see why Federer is going down hill, then you are just plain ignorant.

So he is goin three sets with guys, yet still manages to win and he is going downhill. I think you are the ignorant one ranger. How many losses does he have total in four years? You shouldn't open your mouth when the only thing coming out is BS.

saram
08-18-2007, 07:32 PM
Watching Federer play Hewitt right now is a horrendous experience. I have never seen him look worse then he has over this period, not only today, but the last 5 months.

To say he got some real luck at both the French Open and Wimbledon would be an understatement. Davydenko should have beaten him in straight sets in the French Open semis, it was a big Christmas gift collapse in all 3 sets by Nikolay, wrapped in a pretty pink ribbon. Youzhny even gave him some gifts in the 4th round. It was not Roger's tennis that won him those matches, it was his aura.

Then at Wimbledon he could have easily been down 2 sets to 0 to clay courter Ferrero. He honestly had no business winning any of the first 4 sets of the final with Nadal. Only in the 5th set was he the better player.

He needs to get over his stubborn attitude and ego (I dont mean that in a bad way, having an ego is part of being a champion but you need to bite your tongue sometimes) and get a coach. He desperately needs one, it is a MUST. He will not keep getting this luck forever playing the kind of tennis he has played since March.

Drugs kill. Put them down. Now...

federerfanatic
08-18-2007, 08:12 PM
Sampras lost to nobodies in smaller events, but we know Federer takes master events seriously (at least Indian Wells, Miami, Rome, and the bigger well known ones). He lost to Canas (twice) and Volandri, and nearly lost to Roddick at the end of 06, and has nearly lost alot of matches to players of much lesser calibur then he is this year. Alot of close calls for Federer this year.


Whenever Federer lost before he lost to quality players and talented that were on hot streaks, such as Safin, Nalbandian, Gasquet, Murray, and Nadal. Honestly the only exception that I can think of is Tomas Berdych, but we all know he's a pretty good player, top 20 right now, but could be so much more. Now he's losing to players WELL below his skill level. I mean for crying out loud, Volandri? Struggling against Almagro on hardcourts? Seriously, if you can't see why Federer is going down hill, then you are just plain ignorant.

Exactly. Federer does play the Masters events all out, unlike Sampras's method. Neither is wrong neccessarily, just their preference. He just isnt playing as well anymore, that is why you see wierd things like losing to Volandri, or struggling against Almagro on hard courts. His tennis is suffering right now, it is obvious watching him play, but I guess people want to turn a blind eye and see what they want to see.

jetlee2k
08-18-2007, 09:35 PM
What Federer needs is Mental Coach.. His game is ok but his mental is fragile "sometimes".. I noticed whenever he's up a break he starts making more unforce errors.. He should give me a call for Mental Coaching then..

daddy
08-18-2007, 10:29 PM
Well said! I am always amazed at how Federer can win even when he isn't playing his best. It is simply terrific!

Unles djoko is around the net ..

daddy
08-18-2007, 10:31 PM
Exactly. Federer does play the Masters events all out, unlike Sampras's method. Neither is wrong neccessarily, just their preference. He just isnt playing as well anymore, that is why you see wierd things like losing to Volandri, or struggling against Almagro on hard courts. His tennis is suffering right now, it is obvious watching him play, but I guess people want to turn a blind eye and see what they want to see.

I noticed someone said that federer is dominant that much, that sampras never had less than 11 defeats and fed almost every year in last 4 years has less. Well my boys, try being a slam winner thruought 12 - 13 years as sampras did and being nr 1 for 8 consecutive years or whatever ...

THEY ARE DIFFERENT, MENTALLY AND OTHERWISE !!! When people get this they will stop compparing them. Only similar thing is that they are tennis legends.

Harry_Wild
08-18-2007, 10:57 PM
I saw alot of Hewitt vs. Federer matches in the past; and it just sticks in the gut of Hewitt when he loose against Federer in a match so close. I kind of think; this is my opinion; that Federer orchestras the points so that the finish is so close; just to jerk Hewitt around some. I know I would - just to see Hewitt suffer!

daddy
08-18-2007, 11:24 PM
I saw alot of Hewitt vs. Federer matches in the past; and it just sticks in the gut of Hewitt when he loose against Federer in a match so close. I kind of think; this is my opinion; that Federer orchestras the points so that the finish is so close; just to jerk Hewitt around some. I know I would - just to see Hewitt suffer!

Hes not a magician, though it seems their matches are close but I think this is plain stupid statement.

nBladed
08-18-2007, 11:31 PM
There was a mention about Fed's "ego" in some previous posts and to some degree I think that is a correct direction to pontificate upon. One thing that he may be going through that few people on this Earth understand is "when you reach the top". Most of us struggle to prove some aspect of our ego to support a level of approval about our false selves. There are few who actually can exercise "getting to the top" and realizing that there is nothing there or nothing left to prove. Many celebs, athletes etc. have talked about this extensively from Madonna to Michael Jordan. Even Sampras said that the pressure about being at top was completely different than climbing up. He knew that everyone was gunning for him. But after you have proven yourself repeatedly how do you find more inspiration? Mats Wilander even talked about being slightly depressed after his rise to the top. Mike Tyson lost his hunger and subsequently relied upon his reputation and began expectating people to "fold" for him.

In my opinion, I kinda feel that Fed is in the same position. He is experiencing an expectation that makes him not look "as hungry" as years past. He is not as focused. He is shanking way more balls and he doesn't seem to be as suffocating with his defense which leads me to believe he is relying on something else which could be his reputation of "being invincible". Others seem to have caught on that Fed is "human" and they are testing him more and are more psychologically prepared.

Fed may not need a new coach but a new mountain to climb and only he can create that. He no longer can rely on the mountain of being the best of the ATP. He has long surpassed that. Even if he says that his new mountain is being the best ever (more slams than Pete) that may not last long because that is a egoic concern and does not contribute to the joy of playing tennis day in and day out. His new mountain will have to come from the core of joy. And sure he loves being out there but maybe his joy was previously linked to his ascendancy which is no longer there.

Good luck Roger.

The tennis guy
08-19-2007, 09:22 AM
This year he's lost matches to Canas, Volandri (right....), Djokovic, and Nadal. I mean, seriously, two of those names really don't belong on that list. His stubborness will eventually be his downfall.

I guess you have been hoping for Federer's downfall for years, it hasn't happenned. He will go down someday, not until he wins more slam titles.

For someone who won 11 slams, winning Aussie open this year, why would it matter he lost to Canas afterwards? getting to French Open final, why would it matter he lost to Volandri before that? if he goes on winning us open, why would it matter he lost to Njokovic before the open.

I guess it matters only to you who come to degrade Federer's greatness at every term, or the other one who started this thread, wishing Federer beats everyone everywhere handily. Both are morons. One is jealous for the player he likes, one is a demanding freak.

the green god
08-19-2007, 09:28 AM
get a clue. he is twenty six. he isn't going to get any better. he is just going through the normal aging of a tennis player.

daddy
08-19-2007, 09:43 AM
How the hell losing to Vonlandri matters for Federer at non slam events? I guess moron like you will never understand. If Federer's tennis is so bad right now, how about just stop watching.

I would have to say that people notice changed federer comared to 05 at especially 06 - we all watch him win and win and win , now when he loses it means more than when sampras used to lose to some lower ranked playwers. Iss it motivation or whatever, he is aging as we all are and he certanlly is not near as dominant this year as in 06 so Id say hes on a decline compared to himself a year ago. I will not say it means hell slip to nr5 but he is on a slow but steady decline.

This stupid thinking that GS is the only thing that matters to tennis players, that I can not understand. Matters the most for sure, but youd like to win against canas, djokovic, volandri and swipe the almagro off the court etc, non related to where does it happen. They are guys who eat their guts when playing badly, let alone winning.

jukka1970
08-19-2007, 10:09 AM
Exactly. Federer does play the Masters events all out, unlike Sampras's method. Neither is wrong neccessarily, just their preference. He just isnt playing as well anymore, that is why you see wierd things like losing to Volandri, or struggling against Almagro on hard courts. His tennis is suffering right now, it is obvious watching him play, but I guess people want to turn a blind eye and see what they want to see.

It's called being human. The only blindness going on, is your blindness towards the fact that no one is perfect. And to say the point again, Federer is doing better this year on hard courts then he did last year, go look at the statistics.

Jukka

anointedone
08-19-2007, 10:14 AM
How the hell losing to Vonlandri matters for Federer at non slam events? I guess moron like you will never understand. If Federer's tennis is so bad right now, how about just stop watching.

Roger does not purposely lose a match to someone like Volandri, even in a Masters events. Multiple matches like that this year in Masters events, which there have been for Federer, are a sign of something.

West Coast Ace
08-19-2007, 10:39 AM
Watching Federer play Hewitt right now is a horrendous experience. I have never seen him look worse then he has over this period, not only today, but the last 5 months.

To say he got some real luck at both the French Open and Wimbledon would be an understatement. Davydenko should have beaten him in straight sets in the French Open semis, it was a big Christmas gift collapse in all 3 sets by Nikolay, wrapped in a pretty pink ribbon. Youzhny even gave him some gifts in the 4th round. It was not Roger's tennis that won him those matches, it was his aura.

Then at Wimbledon he could have easily been down 2 sets to 0 to clay courter Ferrero. He honestly had no business winning any of the first 4 sets of the final with Nadal. Only in the 5th set was he the better player.

He needs to get over his stubborn attitude and ego (I dont mean that in a bad way, having an ego is part of being a champion but you need to bite your tongue sometimes) and get a coach. He desperately needs one, it is a MUST. He will not keep getting this luck forever playing the kind of tennis he has played since March.So much wrong with this premise - as others have already had torn into. The matches you say he shouldn't have won - he did. As we say in the US, "Scoreboard!"

And your last paragraph, I can buy the stubborn attitude - remember he had that in his early pro days and many thought that he'd never get over it then and continue to be a massive underachiever. Don't you think his coaches then weren't telling him the right things? So what makes you think that now, as #1, he would be a better pupil? Tennis isn't brain surgery - especially when you have his tools. What would a coach tell him?: "Stop missing so many topspin backhands?" Good gig if you can get it - and like others I'll throw my hat in the ring if Fed posts the job opening.

Federer has been doing just fine without a coach. Let's see, he's got two grand slams so far, yet again with 11 grandslams and counting. He may not have won in Canada, but he was the runner up. And right now Federer has done a hell of a lot better in Ohio, then he usually does. 2nd round loss last year. And if you look over the years that he's played at the masters in Ohio, he has won it once, and all the other years he was out the 1st or 2nd round.Pretty much sums it up. His year so far would be awesome to all but a handful of male players who've ever played the game - Laver, McEnroe, Sampras. It's only when measured against his last few that it appears to be a downer year.

I saw alot of Hewitt vs. Federer matches in the past; and it just sticks in the gut of Hewitt when he loose against Federer in a match so close. I kind of think; this is my opinion; that Federer orchestras the points so that the finish is so close; just to jerk Hewitt around some. I know I would - just to see Hewitt suffer!That's quite a theory - but I can't see that. As the ESPN team noted - Fed and Rafa only win 55% of the points to 45% for their opponents - the gap isn't as big as the uninitiated public thinks. And Fed has way too much respect for Hewitt to play with fire and have it blow up in his face, even if it was feasible.

The tennis guy
08-19-2007, 10:47 AM
Roger does not purposely lose a match to someone like Volandri, even in a Masters events. Multiple matches like that this year in Masters events, which there have been for Federer, are a sign of something.

It's your conjecture. Federer said at the end of last year, he is not going to play 90-100 matches in 2007 like he did last two years, just about 60-70, to have long career. He repeated his desire to play until 2012 at least. Guess what, he has to lose somewhere because he can't withdraw from too many tournaments.

The tennis guy
08-19-2007, 10:49 AM
This stupid thinking that GS is the only thing that matters to tennis players, that I can not understand. Matters the most for sure, but youd like to win against canas, djokovic, volandri and swipe the almagro off the court etc, non related to where does it happen. They are guys who eat their guts when playing badly, let alone winning.

Not to all tennis players, but to Federer at this point of his career. Federer focused on smaller events a lot more in the past, but not anymore. He didn't play any warm up events before Aussie and Wimbledon which he never did before.

dukemunson
08-19-2007, 11:44 AM
Seriously, if you can't see why Federer is going down hill, then you are just plain ignorant.

So dumb...wow...you are ridiculous.

tennispro11
08-19-2007, 11:48 AM
So dumb...wow...you are ridiculous.

That is what I have been saying for awhile now. He keeps posting complete BS all the time. It is ridiculous.

Jon Rudy
08-19-2007, 12:09 PM
I think Federer would gladly trade in a few more losses this season for the chance to beat Nadal on clay. He did.

Players may also be finally catching up to Federer, as well. Wasn't that the 20th time that Hewitt and Federer played each other last night? Eventually the losses get less lopsided, and I'm sure Hewitt is exhausting everything in his repetoire to find a way to win again against Federer.

I think the fact that he's doing so well even without a coach is a testament to how good he really is. How many endless threads do we see talking about Roddick needing a new coach, or how Sharapova and Nadal get illegal, advantegeous coaching from the sidelines?

federerfanatic
03-06-2008, 09:52 AM
A good time to revisit this thread.

slice-o-maniac
03-06-2008, 10:01 AM
lemme ask the people who watched the match between murray and federer.... what was federer doing wrong to give murray that match?

slice-o-maniac
03-06-2008, 10:02 AM
or what was murray doing right for him to go on to the next round? i know i shouldn't be one sided on this saying federer was having a bad day or something.... i think it is his lack of practice that's getting to fed though, because in the past few events he seems to be slacking off a bit.

Rickson
03-06-2008, 10:06 AM
A good time to revisit this thread.

You resurrected your thread? What's wrong with you?

federerfanatic
03-06-2008, 10:08 AM
lemme ask the people who watched the match between murray and federer.... what was federer doing wrong to give murray that match?

Let me see:

-poor serving
-hitting his forehand with no ferocity, and still missing a ton of easy forehands into the net
-backhand was absolute crap
-slicing weak returns on every Murray serve, even second serves
-sluggish footwork
-poor concentration

That about sums it up.