PDA

View Full Version : Federer should be coached by Mcenroe


Ramjet
04-06-2009, 10:26 AM
Here are the reasons why:

1. Federer has a bigger toolbox than mcenroe but mcenroe has a different set of tools than federer. There has to be something in that toolbox fed can use to beat nadal.
2. He is gonna have to start doing something different to beat nadal. The
sooner he comes to realize it the better for himself.
3. As federer becomes a father the relaxed company with John and contrasting personalities will be refreshing for both of them.
4. Mcenroe had a doggedness in his playing style and willingness to try things that could inspire Fed.

From Macs perspective:
1. his body is not gonna stand up for much longer on the seniors tour. Coaching fed will be a nice replacement for that.
2. He can team with fed to win the singles french open he never won himself.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 10:46 AM
Federer can still beat Nadal on hard courts and grass from the baseline, as long as he is confident. Until he gets that confidence, Nadal will beat Federer and it'll become easier for him every time.

RalphNYC
04-06-2009, 10:48 AM
Federer is getting older. He can not move or play like he used to. It's sad to watch, but that's how it goes. No coach can bring his youth back.

endbegin
04-06-2009, 11:01 AM
Apparently McEnroe wants to do this too ... so says the Ticker page on Tennis.com

vtmike
04-06-2009, 11:03 AM
Federer can still beat Nadal on hard courts and grass from the baseline, as long as he is confident. Until he gets that confidence, Nadal will beat Federer and it'll become easier for him every time.

I agree because its not like he was blown away in any final on grass and hard...all of those were close 5 set matches which could've gone either way...and in such close matches it always comes down to confidence

dextor
04-06-2009, 11:08 AM
EVERYBODY's got an idea.

djsiva
04-06-2009, 11:10 AM
Mac is such a great coach. Look what he did as Davis cup coach. NOTHING. All he did was whine and complain as usually.

Fed doesn't need a coach. He just needs to build his fitness and get a slightly bigger more consistent serve. Sampras just relied on a bigger serve. And Sampras wasn't fit and he was slower and his groundstrokes were worse. He lost to Djokovic because his 1st serve percentage was down.

Just get a better serve and keep up the fitness.

Here are the reasons why:

1. Federer has a bigger toolbox than mcenroe but mcenroe has a different set of tools than federer. There has to be something in that toolbox fed can use to beat nadal.
2. He is gonna have to start doing something different to beat nadal. The
sooner he comes to realize it the better for himself.
3. As federer becomes a father the relaxed company with John and contrasting personalities will be refreshing for both of them.
4. Mcenroe had a doggedness in his playing style and willingness to try things that could inspire Fed.

From Macs perspective:
1. his body is not gonna stand up for much longer on the seniors tour. Coaching fed will be a nice replacement for that.
2. He can team with fed to win the singles french open he never won himself.

rubberduckies
04-06-2009, 11:19 AM
Federer became quite annoyed in his Miami post-match interview when somebody brought up the coaches question. He angrily said that he had had 5 coaches in the last 2 years. His is also angry that his fans keep trying to give him suggestions.

More coaches won't help Roger, especially a big Fedfan like McEnroe, whose fanboyism will certainly cloud his judgment and assessment of Roger. The Nadal problem was never a mental issue. Fedfans just used that as an excuse for Roger's shortcomings. Rafa wasn't in Roger's head in Miami 04 but won in straights. He wasn't in his head when Roger came back from 0-2 in Miami 05. He wasn't in his head at Wimbledon 07, when Roger won despite being outclassed from the ground. He wasn't in his head when Nadal posted consecutive DF in the 4th TB in Wimby 08. It has never been mental. It has always been about Roger trying to overcome a better player.

Roger has been fortunate to catch Rafa during his youth, which has allowed him to post 6 wins against Nadal. He has also managed to turn what should have been comfortable Nadal victories into marathon 5-setters. Realistically, that is all Fed could possibly have hoped for against a man with far greater talent and far superior tennis abilities.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 11:46 AM
Federer became quite annoyed in his Miami post-match interview when somebody brought up the coaches question. He angrily said that he had had 5 coaches in the last 2 years. His is also angry that his fans keep trying to give him suggestions.

More coaches won't help Roger, especially a big Fedfan like McEnroe, whose fanboyism will certainly cloud his judgment and assessment of Roger. The Nadal problem was never a mental issue. Fedfans just used that as an excuse for Roger's shortcomings. Rafa wasn't in Roger's head in Miami 04 but won in straights. He wasn't in his head when Roger came back from 0-2 in Miami 05. He wasn't in his head at Wimbledon 07, when Roger won despite being outclassed from the ground. He wasn't in his head when Nadal posted consecutive DF in the 4th TB in Wimby 08. It has never been mental. It has always been about Roger trying to overcome a better player.

Roger has been fortunate to catch Rafa during his youth, which has allowed him to post 6 wins against Nadal. He has also managed to turn what should have been comfortable Nadal victories into marathon 5-setters. Realistically, that is all Fed could possibly have hoped for against a man with far greater talent and far superior tennis abilities.

So I guess Nadal wasn't in his head when Roger was leadin 5-1 in the first set of Hamburg 08 and had a set point. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Roger was leading 4-0 at Monte Carlo 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had two match points in Rome 2006. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had a break point at 4-3 in the 5th of Wimbeldon 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mid when Fed was leading by a break in the 1st set of AO 2009 final, yet lost the set. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Fed, in the same match, had a gazilion of break points in that 3rd set yet ended up losing it.

You see, it's not just about talent. If it was, Nadal wouldn't even be a top 10 player (With all respect to Nadal, but like I said time and time again, his stamina, fitness and mental strength make up for his low dose of natural talent). You again solidify your status as this forum's worst poster.

rubberduckies
04-06-2009, 11:56 AM
So I guess Nadal wasn't in his head when Roger was leadin 5-1 in the first set of Hamburg 08 and had a set point. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Roger was leading 4-0 at Monte Carlo 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had two match points in Rome 2006. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had a break point at 4-3 in the 5th of Wimbeldon 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mid when Fed was leading by a break in the 1st set of AO 2009 final, yet lost the set. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Fed, in the same match, had a gazilion of break points in that 3rd set yet ended up losing it.

You see, it's not just about talent. If it was, Nadal wouldn't even be a top 10 player (With all respect to Nadal, but like I said time and time again, his stamina, fitness and mental strength make up for his low dose of natural talent). You again solidify your status as this forum's worst poster.

You are exactly the reason I can't stand Federer fans. You have admitted that only started watching tennis because you were attracted by the idea of Fed's dominance, meaning you know absolutely nothing about tennis outside of being a *******.

On clay, all Nadal has to do is decide to up his game, and it's just over in a flash for Roger because he has no chance of answering. And everybody misses breakpoints. Nadal missed many in the Aussie Final, several due to horribly nervous 2nd serve returns.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 12:05 PM
You are exactly the reason I can't stand Federer fans. You have admitted that only started watching tennis because you were attracted by the idea of Fed's dominance, meaning you know absolutely nothing about tennis outside of being a *******.

On clay, all Nadal has to do is decide to up his game, and it's just over in a flash for Roger because he has no chance of answering. And everybody misses breakpoints. Nadal missed many in the Aussie Final, several due to horribly nervous 2nd serve returns.

Never said I was atrracted to Fed's dominance. You keep saying that and you simply lie. I came back to watch tennis because of Fed's beautiful style of play. In fact, I hate dominance. I like balance. Second, you are the last person who can call someone a ****. Your'e not only a *******, you're stupid at that too: Nadal decides when to play well? Sure, right, then why didn't he decide to play well on Hamburg 2007 when Federer spanked him? I mean, he already knew Fed's game, he knew how to beat him on clay, so why didn't he decide to beat him. Pathetic comment by you, yet again.

TennisandMusic
04-06-2009, 12:14 PM
So I guess Nadal wasn't in his head when Roger was leadin 5-1 in the first set of Hamburg 08 and had a set point. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Roger was leading 4-0 at Monte Carlo 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had two match points in Rome 2006. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had a break point at 4-3 in the 5th of Wimbeldon 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mid when Fed was leading by a break in the 1st set of AO 2009 final, yet lost the set. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Fed, in the same match, had a gazilion of break points in that 3rd set yet ended up losing it.

You see, it's not just about talent. If it was, Nadal wouldn't even be a top 10 player (With all respect to Nadal, but like I said time and time again, his stamina, fitness and mental strength make up for his low dose of natural talent). You again solidify your status as this forum's worst poster.

How can anyone take you seriously if you believe Nadal has a "low dose" of natural talent? Fitness and mental strength only take you so far, and it certainly won't take you to number 1 in the world. Don't let your love of Federer blind you THAT much. Nadal is supremely talented.

mzzmuaa
04-06-2009, 12:19 PM
rubber acts like an idiot because it's the only way for him to get attention. He can't contribute anything useful, and he's afraid of trying. It's sad that such idiots have to associate themselves with Nadal's image.

McEnroe doesn't have anything to offer Federer. Federer is a far better player in a far tougher game, and McEnroe hasn't proved himself as a decent coach either.
Federer's style of play is naturally prey for defensive, opportunistic players like Nadal and Murray. It's no big surprise that he's got a losing record against them.
Confidence issues are probably showing up, but there aren't too many cures-especially for someone as stubborn as Federer.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 12:21 PM
How can anyone take you seriously if you believe Nadal has a "low dose" of natural talent? Fitness and mental strength only take you so far, and it certainly won't take you to number 1 in the world. Don't let your love of Federer blind you THAT much. Nadal is supremely talented.

Exactly the opposite. Talent only takes you so far. Talent is about 5%-10% of a tennis player. After that, it's all fiteness, mental strength, consistency, movement. Look at Gasquet - the guy has talent out of this world, and it's pretty obvious by his shot making. If it was all about talent, Gasquet would be top 5 for sure. He's not. And he's nowhere near the top 5, nor the top 10 for that matter. Gasquet is the perfect proof that you can have all the talent in the world and still have zero results. Nadal is exacty the opposite, Nadal is a proof you can acheive greatness with little talent. The trio of Federer, Djokovic and Murray have more talent than Nadal, and that means squat, as Nadal is currently better than each of them.

Mick
04-06-2009, 12:27 PM
i don't know about this combination: federer is a pretty sensitive guy, as we all know. I don't know if he could take the verbal abuses from mcenroe when he strays away from mcenroe's coaching. Even roddick could not handle connors and roddick is a tougher guy and connors does not explode like mcenroe does.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 02:28 PM
Federer needs to be more patient on the court, the very last thing McEnroe could ever teach him!!

sureshs
04-06-2009, 02:30 PM
What you don't realize is the coaching has already started. Fed smashed his racquet and chucked water bottles. He is training to shout at the umpire next.

swedechris
04-06-2009, 02:32 PM
What you don't realize is the coaching has already started. Fed smashed his racquet and chucked water bottles. He is training to shout at the umpire next.

LOL... thats right. It is already over also.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 02:33 PM
What you don't realize is the coaching has already started. Fed smashed his racquet and chucked water bottles. He is training to shout at the umpire next.
The way he threw those bottles was so rude and inconsiderate. If I was a ballkid, I would have thrown them back at him!

Tennis_Bum
04-06-2009, 02:38 PM
Federer is getting older. He can not move or play like he used to. It's sad to watch, but that's how it goes. No coach can bring his youth back.

Not to debate this to death but Roddick's movement is improved markedly after he started working with Stefansky (sp). Fed's is only 1 year older than Roddick. And Fed moves a lot better than Roddick.

The point is, Fed is getting older but he is not at a point where is is going downhill fast. I think his mental game is more troublesome than his physical game. The only way Fed can gain confidence is by lowering unforced errors during tough matches. That forehand is killing him right now, and the backhand is not helping much either.

Other said that if Fed has confidence he can beat the Murray, Nadal and Djoko, but you can only gain confidence with concrete results. You only kid yourself if you tell the press that you are confidence when you keep losing in the later rounds and not put up a lot of resistance. Fed didn't do that at AO, IW, and Miami this year. And the sad thing is that he actually said that he was happy that the hardcourt season is over and now he can play on clay. He's good on clay but I think he could win much easier on faster surfaces where the balls don't bounce as high and the pace favors Fed's game. Clay will just kill Fed right now. That was a strange comment by Fed.

sureshs
04-06-2009, 02:39 PM
The way he threw those bottles was so rude and inconsiderate. If I was a ballkid, I would have thrown them back at him!

Yeah it wan't the green thing to do. He should have been fined and made to drop them into the recycling bin.

Tennis_Bum
04-06-2009, 02:43 PM
The way he threw those bottles was so rude and inconsiderate. If I was a ballkid, I would have thrown them back at him!

You always seem to miss the important thing about a match. Your comment is completely expected especially you are a Nadal's fan, not a tennis fan.

You completely overlooked that fact that the damage was done after Fed smashed the racket. Anything happened after that was only residual effects. But of course, you don't catch on as quickly as most people here.

You could never be a ballperson because you just can't do a proper job. You would be too busy watching everything Nadal does and not concentrate on the job.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 02:55 PM
You always seem to miss the important thing about a match. Your comment is completely expected especially you are a Nadal's fan, not a tennis fan.

You completely overlooked that fact that the damage was done after Fed smashed the racket. Anything happened after that was only residual effects. But of course, you don't catch on as quickly as most people here.

You could never be a ballperson because you just can't do a proper job. You would be too busy watching everything Nadal does and not concentrate on the job.
Nice theory but this wasn't the first time I saw Fed do that and I don't care whether he had just smashed his racquet or not. Unlike you, I have no reason to look for desperate excuses when Federer does something wrong. And that was as wrong as it gets (in my book at least).

thejoe
04-06-2009, 02:57 PM
Nice theory but this wasn't the first time I saw Fed do that and I don't care whether he had just smashed his racquet or not. Unlike you, I have no reason to look for desperate excuses when Federer does something wrong. And that was as wrong as it gets (in my book at least).

He seems right on the money if you ask me. You never seem to comment on Fed's tennis, it is always his behaviour and personality.

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 03:03 PM
He seems right on the money if you ask me. You never seem to comment on Fed's tennis, it is always his behaviour and personality.
I comment on his tennis regularly and I just did in the thread about the second best clay player if you care to look. Howerer, you only notice my comments about his attitude because they're generally negative. But to me he deserves them and I don't care that they make his fans furious.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 03:16 PM
Nice theory but this wasn't the first time I saw Fed do that and I don't care whether he had just smashed his racquet or not. Unlike you, I have no reason to look for desperate excuses when Federer does something wrong. And that was as wrong as it gets (in my book at least).

We get it already: Nadal is perfect, Federer is an arrogant, bottle throwing, racquet smashing, talentless loser. Right. I think Fed fans already get yours, rubber duckies, Nadal Freak's and Bud's "opinions" (among others).

Lotto
04-06-2009, 03:17 PM
You are exactly the reason I can't stand Federer fans. You have admitted that only started watching tennis because you were attracted by the idea of Fed's dominance, meaning you know absolutely nothing about tennis outside of being a *******.

On clay, all Nadal has to do is decide to up his game, and it's just over in a flash for Roger because he has no chance of answering. And everybody misses breakpoints. Nadal missed many in the Aussie Final, several due to horribly nervous 2nd serve returns.

So I guess Nadal wasn't in his head when Roger was leadin 5-1 in the first set of Hamburg 08 and had a set point. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Roger was leading 4-0 at Monte Carlo 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had two match points in Rome 2006. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had a break point at 4-3 in the 5th of Wimbeldon 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mid when Fed was leading by a break in the 1st set of AO 2009 final, yet lost the set. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Fed, in the same match, had a gazilion of break points in that 3rd set yet ended up losing it.

You see, it's not just about talent. If it was, Nadal wouldn't even be a top 10 player (With all respect to Nadal, but like I said time and time again, his stamina, fitness and mental strength make up for his low dose of natural talent). You again solidify your status as this forum's worst poster.


I must say that I agree and disagree with both of you. First of all, P_Agony, saying Nadal has a low dose of natural talent is probably the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. And trust me. I am a HUGE Federer fan. I was almost in tears during and when he lost the Wimbledon match this year but you CAN'T say Nadal doesnt have natural talent. That is actually just ridiculous. Yes, he has amazing mental strength and fitness etc. but he is very talented. Just because he doesn't play in a beatiful way does not mean he is not talented.

And rubberduckies, saying that Rafa is not in Roger's head and that Roger was fortunate to catch Rafa during his youth? That's ALMOST on par in idioticness as P_Agony's comment that Nadal has no natural talent. It was plainly obvious that Nadal was catching up to Federer. Everyone on the tour was catching up to Roger on every surface APART from Nadal on clay where Nadal, where Nadal was better but not by much. Look at the Rome 2006 final. Federer had two match points in a tough 5 set match. And no, when Federer was 5-1 against Rafa in Hamburg last year he didn't lose because Rafa just decided to "up his game". It was clear that Roger lost that set because he didn't believe he could win it. He didn't believe he deserved it and having been in that position so many times before against Rafa on clay he lacked balls BIG time. Roger HAD the beating of Nadal on clay but he didn't have it mentally. And now that has transferred over to other surfaces ASWELL AS Nadal's incredible improvement on hard and grasscourts. Also, it has transferred to Roger's game in all because he has lost his self-belief and confidence against everyone in the top 4.


Seriously lads/lasses, what age are ye? Do you do this for a living??

veroniquem
04-06-2009, 03:21 PM
We get it already: Nadal is perfect, Federer is an arrogant, bottle throwing, racquet smashing, talentless loser. Right. I think Fed fans already get yours, rubber duckies, Nadal Freak's and Bud's "opinions" (among others).
I don't like Federer's attitude, no. Why would that be a problem for you, I don't know. If you want to defend throwing bottles over your shoulders and not shaking the ump's hand, go ahead but don't ask me to back it up.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 03:22 PM
I must say that I agree and disagree with both of you. First of all, P_Agony, saying Nadal has a low dose of natural talent is probably the most idiotic thing I have ever heard. And trust me. I am a HUGE Federer fan. I was almost in tears during and when he lost the Wimbledon match this year but you CAN'T say Nadal doesnt have natural talent. That is actually just ridiculous. Yes, he has amazing mental strength and fitness etc. but he is very talented. Just because he doesn't play in a beatiful way does not mean he is not talented.

And rubberduckies, saying that Rafa is not in Roger's head and that Roger was fortunate to catch Rafa during his youth? That's ALMOST on par in idioticness as P_Agony's comment that Nadal has no natural talent. It was plainly obvious that Nadal was catching up to Federer. Everyone on the tour was catching up to Roger on every surface APART from Nadal on clay where Nadal, where Nadal was better but not by much. Look at the Rome 2006 final. Federer had two match points in a tough 5 set match. And no, when Federer was 5-1 against Rafa in Hamburg last year he didn't lose because Rafa just decided to "up his game". It was clear that Roger lost that set because he didn't believe he could win it. He didn't believe he deserved it and having been in that position so many times before against Rafa on clay he lacked balls BIG time. Roger HAD the beating of Nadal on clay but he didn't have it mentally. And now that has transferred over to other surfaces ASWELL AS Nadal's incredible improvement on hard and grasscourts. Also, it has transferred to Roger's game in all because he has lost his self-belief and confidence against everyone in the top 4.


Seriously lads/lasses, what age are ye? Do you do this for a living??

I stay by my comment. Is is idiotic to you, which is fine and legit. To me it's the truth. I never said Nadal has no talent, I said he has little talent comapred to other top 10 players. I see it by his forced and unnatural looking strokes. Nadal I believe had to work harder that Federer to reach his greatness, simply because it didn't come as naturaly to him as it did for Fed. To say my comment is idiotic is abit rude, don't you think? You can simply say you disagree with it, and you'd still get a reply.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 03:28 PM
I don't like Federer's attitude, no. Why would that be a problem for you, I don't know. If you want to defend throwing bottles over your shoulders and not shaking the ump's hand, go ahead but don't ask me to back it up.

It's not a problem for me, as I don't really care what you think about his attitude, but I just think the subject has been dug to death, don't you? I mean, how many threads about Fed's racquet smashing, coaching advice, bad attitude, lame interviews, etc. do we actually need?

Yes, Federer isn't perfect. Yes, not shaking the ump's hand was wrong. Yes, he sometimes says nasty stuff which he shouldn't be saying. Yes, throwing bottles is rude and uncalled for. I know that, we all know that (Federer fans). We also know there are many good things about him as well, many of which he's done for you hero Nadal. Nadal isn't perfect either. His past interview wasn't great too, I don't like some of the things I've seen him do on court, but that's hardly enough for me to hate the guy. For example, I don't like his crazy celebrations of good points in the face of his falling opponents - that doesn't mean I'll go and open 10 threads about Nadal's attitude. The guy is allowed to make mistakes, and so is Federer. They're humans.

Lotto
04-06-2009, 03:30 PM
I stay by my comment. Is is idiotic to you, which is fine and legit. To me it's the truth. I never said Nadal has no talent, I said he has little talent comapred to other top 10 players. I see it by his forced and unnatural looking strokes. Nadal I believe had to work harder that Federer to reach his greatness, simply because it didn't come as naturaly to him as it did for Fed. To say my comment is idiotic is abit rude, don't you think? You can simply say you disagree with it, and you'd still get a reply.


Yes, I agree it probably was very rude but it just shocked me some of the insane comments on this board from loads of different posters. And no poster seems to agree with the other. It's madness.

P_Agony
04-06-2009, 03:33 PM
Yes, I agree it probably was very rude but it just shocked me some of the insane comments on this board from loads of different posters. And no poster seems to agree with the other. It's madness.

As I've said, I completley see where you're coming from, but to each his own. Nadal surely has some talent, otherwise he wouldn't be #1 today. I also said natural talent only takes you so far, and is barely 5%-10% of a player's quality. I really think Federer, Murray, and Djokovic are much more naturally talented than Nadal, and I also think it means absolutley nothing, as he's kicking their a** on regular occasions. And again I say, take a look at some highly talented players that got nowhere because they lacked a lot of other things Nadal has tons of.

stoble
04-06-2009, 04:07 PM
what happened to the topic of Johnny Mac as a coach?

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 05:55 PM
what happened to the topic of Johnny Mac as a coach?


It is gone with the wind......

sh@de
04-06-2009, 06:29 PM
Lol this thread became like the other one about Mac and Fed again...

AprilFool
04-06-2009, 06:36 PM
^^^^^^^^

I've eaten too much popcorn.

SaintClaires
04-06-2009, 06:38 PM
^^^^^^^^

I've eaten too much popcorn.


Huh?? :confused::confused:

AprilFool
04-06-2009, 06:45 PM
Huh?? :confused::confused:

The second 'huh?" today.:) It's just an internet type expression used when a thread turns into a major argument. "Sit back, enjoy the fireworks" would be a like expression.

csr_88
04-06-2009, 07:20 PM
So I guess Nadal wasn't in his head when Roger was leadin 5-1 in the first set of Hamburg 08 and had a set point. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Roger was leading 4-0 at Monte Carlo 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had two match points in Rome 2006. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Federer had a break point at 4-3 in the 5th of Wimbeldon 2008. I guess he wasn't on his mid when Fed was leading by a break in the 1st set of AO 2009 final, yet lost the set. I guess he wasn't on his mind when Fed, in the same match, had a gazilion of break points in that 3rd set yet ended up losing it.

You see, it's not just about talent. If it was, Nadal wouldn't even be a top 10 player (With all respect to Nadal, but like I said time and time again, his stamina, fitness and mental strength make up for his low dose of natural talent). You again solidify your status as this forum's worst poster.

very much agreed

AprilFool
04-06-2009, 07:35 PM
Mac is such a great coach. Look what he did as Davis cup coach. NOTHING. All he did was whine and complain as usually.

Fed doesn't need a coach. He just needs to build his fitness and get a slightly bigger more consistent serve. Sampras just relied on a bigger serve. And Sampras wasn't fit and he was slower and his groundstrokes were worse. He lost to Djokovic because his 1st serve percentage was down.

Just get a better serve and keep up the fitness.

Good points. The wind seriously messed with his serve in Miami. Once that happened he lost belief that he could win the match, imo. He certainly referenced the wind a lot at the presser.

Tennis_Bum
04-06-2009, 10:01 PM
Nice theory but this wasn't the first time I saw Fed do that and I don't care whether he had just smashed his racquet or not. Unlike you, I have no reason to look for desperate excuses when Federer does something wrong. And that was as wrong as it gets (in my book at least).

Again, you completely missed the essential point. I never made excuses for Fed. He played poorly and therefore he deserved to lose that match against Djoko. It was a plain as any observant person watching a tennis match would see it. But of course, you are too stupid to see that because you are too clouded by Fed's nontennis behavior to see the actual tennis match itself. You are again completely wrong about my theory. See, you can't tell the difference, I was simply stating a fact about you not formulating a theory. All you threads, you rant so much about Fed's attitude but not discussing anything meaningful about his current tennis.

Fed was no model citizen in the match against Djoko, but what do you want me to write. I never made excuses for him; you simply assumed that all fans would rush in to make excuses for him. Not every fan is as crazy as you. Most people can rationally discuss tennis and tennis only. Fed played horribly and he needed to beef up his fitness, strategy, and retool his strokes so that he could be more competitive in the later rounds (and that I hope on Saturday's and Sunday's).

But that's me, to each his own, or in your case to each her own.

Tennis_Bum
04-06-2009, 10:09 PM
As I've said, I completley see where you're coming from, but to each his own. Nadal surely has some talent, otherwise he wouldn't be #1 today. I also said natural talent only takes you so far, and is barely 5%-10% of a player's quality. I really think Federer, Murray, and Djokovic are much more naturally talented than Nadal, and I also think it means absolutley nothing, as he's kicking their a** on regular occasions. And again I say, take a look at some highly talented players that got nowhere because they lacked a lot of other things Nadal has tons of.

Fair assessment of Nadal's game. I can't say anything better here. We all know that tennis is more than a fluid, beautiful stroke. Ian Tariac (sp) said that the objective of tennis is to hit the ball over the net. So if you hit if over the net, the chances of having it lands in the court is much better than under the net. Although Fed is equipped with much more natural talents, but tennis demands more than just beautiful strokes.

Nadal's game is quite ugly and brutal, I would never teach my son to play like Nadal because that would just wear out his young joints too, too fast. The way he hits the ball is pure lunacy, simply because no one else hits it like him. There are many similar forehands in tennis, but none like Nadal. The one that comes close is the Russian guy, Igor. But his tennis is quite ugly too. You don't see every club advertises teaching a forehand like Nadal because that will simply lead to injuries.

Chelsea_Kiwi
04-06-2009, 10:25 PM
Comparing Federer's talent to Nadals is pretty hard considering Federer is one of the most naturally talented players of all time. As said if it was based on natural talent Nadal would be like 9, 10 in the world but its not and that is why he is first. That is also why his game is incredibly boring to watch as he relys on other peoples mental game and fitness levels being everywhere.

DunlopDood
04-06-2009, 10:32 PM
There's a problem with your supposition, MacEnroe's toolbox wouldn't work in today's game.

sh@de
04-06-2009, 10:39 PM
Maybe it's just, Nadal's talent isn't the same as the others, which is why he's top. I mean, I'd call his mental toughness and will a talent. Just like I'd say Fed's ability to carve out beautiful shots a talent.

Tennis_Bum
04-06-2009, 10:53 PM
Maybe it's just, Nadal's talent isn't the same as the others, which is why he's top. I mean, I'd call his mental toughness and will a talent. Just like I'd say Fed's ability to carve out beautiful shots a talent.

I never heard anyone put it that way. I certainly wouldn't but I would say that the inherent fierce competitiveness can't be taught. I don't think Fed has it as much as Nadal. But I wouldn't classify it as a talent though. Because a lot of people in many walks of life have very competitive personality, but we don't call that talent do we?

COPEY
04-06-2009, 11:39 PM
As a huge McEnroe fan (playing style/ability - not his antics) I honestly can't see him being an effective coach to anyone, let alone Federer. I could be wrong, of course. I'm inclined to think Federer needs a coach, however. I'm not sure what the showstopper was between him and Cahill. All I heard was that Cahill was unwilling/unable to travel with him full time, but I don't know if there was more to it or whether that story was even accurate.

You know, given Roger's track record with coaches, maybe he's just one of those people who can't be coached, at least on a long-term basis. It's possible he thinks that he's got this far with very little coaching, so maybe he believes he can turn the tide on his own.

I'm not a Fed fan (or a Nadal fan for that matter). I love good tennis--period, and I'm looking forward to seeing how this year shapes up in the men's game, particularly the top 5.

sh@de
04-07-2009, 12:18 AM
No I don't mean his breaks and whatnot... it's his will to not give up, isn't that a sort of talent? See I'm not entirely sure it's 100% talent, but then, I mean, you can draw parallels with this and tennis skills. Just as somebody simply has the talent to flick nice cross court one handed backhand passing shot; Nadal has the will to outgrind anyone. I don't think that's necessarily taught... Sure, many people can be taught to be incredibly fierce and unrelenting, so can people be taught to flick one handed backhand passing shots, but when it comes to the top top level and it's crunch time, it's the guys who have the talent who can pull these things off. Those who have just been trained to do it often won't be as good at it, hence why I say Nadal's toughness is a sort of talent.

iriraz
04-07-2009, 12:38 AM
He had the best coach for his game and tempriment in Tony Roache.

Maybe a phone call is needed me thinks...

The problem with Roche was that he was unavailable for Federer the whole time.It`s hard to have a long relationship by only talking on the phone and beeing together at a couple of tourneys here and there.
Same goes with Cahill.He has a job with Adidas and would not come to every tourney with Federer.Mcenroe would be the same.
He should look for a permanent coach who is willing to travel to every tourney with him

COPEY
04-07-2009, 12:44 AM
He had the best coach for his game and tempriment in Tony Roache.

Maybe a phone call is needed me thinks...

Interesting story about that - according to Federer, it got to the point where Roche didn't want to travel, and when they would talk tactics/strategy over the phone, Roche would supposedly say things like, "Yeah sure - that sounds good. Just keep doing what you're doing and you'll be fine." lolol.

Maybe 'ole Tony just lost his desire to coach in the manner that he did with Lendl.

COPEY
04-07-2009, 12:56 AM
I'm not saying I know why they split. Read the post again. I said "according to Federer..." It was an article I read in Tennis Magazine, so no, I don't know it as fact, which again is why I prefaced it the way I did.

What's interesting is that you would use a line like, "You don't why they split." The same could be said about Roger and McEnroe teaming up as player/coach. It certainly appears that it would be an unproductive "marriage", but no one knows that sure. See, I try to avoid posting opinions as fact, which is pretty much standard on this board. ;)

COPEY
04-07-2009, 01:11 AM
Hehe I don't "get into it" with anyone on forums or boards, 88. I talk tennis here and there, post an opinion on occasion, and move on. I leave the arguing to those who are inclined to do so. Seems to work for me. ;)

The problem with Roche was that he was unavailable for Federer the whole time. It's hard to have a long relationship by only talking on the phone and beeing together at a couple of tourneys here and there.

Same goes with Cahill. He has a job with Adidas and would not come to every tourney with Federer.Mcenroe would be the same.
He should look for a permanent coach who is willing to travel to every tourney with him

Ah ok - all I heard was that they worked together on a trial basis but it didn't work out. I'm curious to see if he actually gets a coach in the near term or if he continues to go it alone. The fact that he agreed to talk to Cahill suggests that he's definitely in the market for a coach, but he also seems to have a very short list of guys he'd consider for the job. Nothing wrong with that of course, but if so, I wonder who else he'd be willing to work with.

tennis_hand
04-07-2009, 08:14 AM
He had the best coach for his game and tempriment in Tony Roache.

Maybe a phone call is needed me thinks...

rarely does this happen, unless the old problem is solved.

Ocean Drive
04-09-2009, 05:45 AM
Federer became quite annoyed in his Miami post-match interview when somebody brought up the coaches question. He angrily said that he had had 5 coaches in the last 2 years. His is also angry that his fans keep trying to give him suggestions.

More coaches won't help Roger, especially a big Fedfan like McEnroe, whose fanboyism will certainly cloud his judgment and assessment of Roger. The Nadal problem was never a mental issue. Fedfans just used that as an excuse for Roger's shortcomings. Rafa wasn't in Roger's head in Miami 04 but won in straights. He wasn't in his head when Roger came back from 0-2 in Miami 05. He wasn't in his head at Wimbledon 07, when Roger won despite being outclassed from the ground. He wasn't in his head when Nadal posted consecutive DF in the 4th TB in Wimby 08. It has never been mental. It has always been about Roger trying to overcome a better player.

Roger has been fortunate to catch Rafa during his youth, which has allowed him to post 6 wins against Nadal. He has also managed to turn what should have been comfortable Nadal victories into marathon 5-setters. Realistically, that is all Fed could possibly have hoped for against a man with far greater talent and far superior tennis abilities.

And Nadal isn't lucky to catch Federer in decline?

His best years were from 04-06...

Oh and big deal Nadal beat Federer in straights in 04, he played like crap. That is no basis for argument.

Nadal is young and Federer is getting old, this is hardly a fair rivalry, Nadal SHOULD be winning.

P_Agony
04-09-2009, 06:29 AM
And Nadal isn't lucky to catch Federer in decline?

His best years were from 04-06...

Oh and big deal Nadal beat Federer in straights in 04, he played like crap. That is no basis for argument.

Nadal is young and Federer is getting old, this is hardly a fair rivalry, Nadal SHOULD be winning.

Not only that, but Federer has managed to close the gap in the H2H to 6-8 in 2007. He managed to beat Rafa on clay for the first time that year, plus on grass and on hard courts. Nadal, however, has taken full atfavtage of Federer's sickness in 2008 and therefore his decline, and made that gap large again.

Eph
04-09-2009, 09:10 AM
Where's Pete? :)

southpaw101
04-09-2009, 10:47 AM
I think he should go back to that coach with the ball launcher in that nike commercial he was doing well then...

TheNatural
04-09-2009, 10:47 PM
If we take that approach, Feds decline came about 3 years ago.It was only masked by all of Nadals injury's in a bunch of Slams (about 5 of them)which Fed was able to win over others.
H2h should have been 5-9 after Wimbledon 07 when Nadal busted his knee tendon, the Gap should never have been as close as it was and the gap in slam s between Fed and Nadal is only as big as it due to all of Nadal's injurys. If For about 5 of those slams where Nadal was injured if the reverse happened and if we put a fit Nadal in the draw and an injured Fed then Fed wins 5 less slams and Nadal up to 5 more, but likely 3+ more slams.


Not only that, but Federer has managed to close the gap in the H2H to 6-8 in 2007. He managed to beat Rafa on clay for the first time that year, plus on grass and on hard courts. Nadal, however, has taken full atfavtage of Federer's sickness in 2008 and therefore his decline, and made that gap large again.

NotSoSuper
04-09-2009, 11:09 PM
Just because you are a great player doesnt mean you are a great coach. Maybe Fed needs someone that has the experience of being at the top, but it all comes down to if you can relate to the player.

IMO i dont think Fed will get a coach.