PDA

View Full Version : Do you still think Fed needs a coach?


sureshs
05-20-2009, 09:52 AM
His tactical changes include playing close to the baseline to take time away from Nadal, frequent drop shots to punish Nadal for standing back, hitting higher loopy backhands to get the ball up higher, and attacking the Nadal backhand with his forehand when Nadal was expecting an inside-out. Aggression without resorting to serve and volley has been the theme.

Federer proved all of the armchair coaches here wrong, because they did not come up with these specific suggestions.

Do you really think any coach would have thought of these novel tactics? Would they just have been a waste of Fed's hard earned money? A diversion from his own reading of the game?

Despite all the cries for coaching, I think Fed proved everyone wrong. I don't think anyone can help him in the FO either, as no one came close to coming up with creative ideas for the Madrid final.

srvnvly
05-20-2009, 09:59 AM
I do think Fed needs a coach. He had a great run in Madrid, but Rafa will no doubt adjust his game. Also, Fed may be a bit distracted when the baby comes; a coach could help provide focus.

A reverse question could be: For those pros that have coaches and are successful, should they keep their coaches, or dump them and save their money?

Puma
05-20-2009, 10:10 AM
I'm gonna have to disagree. I don't think Fed proved anyone wrong. I think he played well, at altitude, against a somewhat tired or "flat" Nadal, served well when he needed it and he won.

I think what Fed was able to do was somewhat (difficult to measure) dictated by Nadal and his lower than normal level of play.

I watched the match and was surprised at the lack of sting Nadals game had. Don't know how to measure that either, but it sure seemed to me that Nadal was flat.

What I do find really good to watch with those two is that either one of them can dictate play at any one moment. Lately, its been Fed who missed, shanked, stayed too far back, low first serve percentage etc and lost. I look forward to the times when both can play at a high level. That makes for really good tennis to watch.

So, I still think Fed needs a coach. Staying back on a slow clay surface won't make for a good final no matter how good he serves.....

sureshs
05-20-2009, 10:18 AM
I agree that Fed was able to win because Nadal was tired from his recent wins while Federer had many more resting days, but my point is that Fed was able to use the opportunity and try some new ideas. Whether he can implement them again in RG or even if it makes sense to do so, I don't know. But I cannot think of anything else he can do, other than coming to the net frequently. I don't think Federer can play better than he did in Madrid even with expert coaching, while Nadal will play at a whole different level in Paris.

R_Federer
05-20-2009, 10:21 AM
Cant wait for Nadal to reach the French Open final "tired" as well and the excuses to pour out if Federer happens to beat him in the final. Wouldnt that be something. "Oh he was tired man".

sureshs
05-20-2009, 10:24 AM
No one will even take a set off Nadal.

Shaolin
05-20-2009, 10:57 AM
I'm sure Fed gets a lot of tactical advice from Luthi. Why else would he travel around with the guy.

Federer_pilon
05-20-2009, 11:49 AM
I'm sure Fed gets a lot of tactical advice from Luthi. Why else would he travel around with the guy.

To carry his bags around...

gsquicksilver
05-20-2009, 12:12 PM
dude, u can't base everything on just one match.

until fed proves it consistently by beating nadal, then we can say screw the critics.

Shaolin
05-20-2009, 12:13 PM
To carry his bags around...

Mirka does that for him:)

thetaxman
05-20-2009, 12:16 PM
He doesn't 'need' a coach. A psyche booster would be better but I think he just did that to himself at Madrid..

Tennis_Bum
05-20-2009, 12:17 PM
No one will even take a set off Nadal.

That's a stupid statement. Nadal will win FO w/o losing a set? Are you going to eat dirt if Nadal get upset? There is no guarantee in sports. A lot of things can happen. I am not saying Fed will win, but others could upset Nadal, although very unlikely. But that doesn't mean it can't happen. So don't bet the house yet.

So is it true that every time Nadal lost a match, it's either he was tired, got blister, the surface was not to his liking, the altitude was not at sea level, and his shorts was too tight for him to pick his ***.

You forgot that Nadal played one fewer match than Fed so for a 22 year old who everyone claimed to be tip top shape for tennis, got tired from a 1 hour match against Djoko and 3 hours waiting between points. That pretty much sums up Nadal's fitness level. Are you supposed to be in great shape at 22, let alone a top professional athlete.

Could it be that Nadal didn't play well because it had something to do with what Fed did on Sunday?

RalphNYC
05-20-2009, 12:18 PM
Nadal will lose. His inferior game hasn't taken long to figure out (unlike Fed's). And it's not just Fed anymore who can, and will, beat him. Adios Rafa!

sureshs
05-20-2009, 12:21 PM
That's a stupid statement.

You better tell that to JMac because that is what he said.

welcome2petrkordaland
05-20-2009, 12:37 PM
That's a stupid statement. Nadal will win FO w/o losing a set? Are you going to eat dirt if Nadal get upset? There is no guarantee in sports. A lot of things can happen. I am not saying Fed will win, but others could upset Nadal, although very unlikely. But that doesn't mean it can't happen. So don't bet the house yet.

So is it true that every time Nadal lost a match, it's either he was tired, got blister, the surface was not to his liking, the altitude was not at sea level, and his shorts was too tight for him to pick his ***.

You forgot that Nadal played one fewer match than Fed so for a 22 year old who everyone claimed to be tip top shape for tennis, got tired from a 1 hour match against Djoko and 3 hours waiting between points. That pretty much sums up Nadal's fitness level. Are you supposed to be in great shape at 22, let alone a top professional athlete.

Could it be that Nadal didn't play well because it had something to do with what Fed did on Sunday?


TENNIS BUM, lemme save you the headache. rafa'll grab Roland Garros #5 this year with the loss of 3 sets or less. If Djokovic ends up in Fed's 1/2, you can forget about it-Fed ain't beatin' both Djokovic and Nadal on slow clay. If Djokovic is in Nadal's 1/2, Fed could take Nadal to 4 . . . maybe, if he makes final. Just don't want you to get your hopes up.

To answer the question on this thread, absolutely yes.

P_Agony
05-20-2009, 12:42 PM
Fed just needs someone to put him in the right direction again, whether it's a coach, a shrink, or whatever. It's the consistency I see from Rafa that I want to see from Fed. I don't want to see him win a tourny only for him to lose the next 5. Just look at the recent US Open, Fed sure played great, but couldn't keep it going in Madrid and Paris, and of course the TMC.

sureshs
05-20-2009, 12:46 PM
I don't think overall consistency is a priority for Fed now. It may be important to Davydenko, but not to Fed. All he wants is enough consistency to win one more Slam or the FO or both at once. And in that Slam, he wants to win against Nadal, not be overly consistent while playing the Blakes and Almagros. If Fed wins many tournaments, but not another Slam, his consistency will not be praised.

veroniquem
05-20-2009, 12:48 PM
That's a stupid statement. Nadal will win FO w/o losing a set? Are you going to eat dirt if Nadal get upset? There is no guarantee in sports. A lot of things can happen. I am not saying Fed will win, but others could upset Nadal, although very unlikely. But that doesn't mean it can't happen. So don't bet the house yet.

So is it true that every time Nadal lost a match, it's either he was tired, got blister, the surface was not to his liking, the altitude was not at sea level, and his shorts was too tight for him to pick his ***.

You forgot that Nadal played one fewer match than Fed so for a 22 year old who everyone claimed to be tip top shape for tennis, got tired from a 1 hour match against Djoko and 3 hours waiting between points. That pretty much sums up Nadal's fitness level. Are you supposed to be in great shape at 22, let alone a top professional athlete.

Could it be that Nadal didn't play well because it had something to do with what Fed did on Sunday?
Nadal played 1 fewer match than Fed? Nadal has played 45 matches this season, Fed 32. Nadal has played 20 matches on clay so far, Fed 11. Funny Nadal has played almost twice as many! Nadal has played 4 finals on clay, Fed 1.
Sure, I can clearly see how much fresher Nadal actually was.

sureshs
05-20-2009, 12:49 PM
Nadal played 1 fewer match than Fed? Nadal has played 45 matches this season, Fed 32. Nadal has played 20 matches on clay so far, Fed 11. Funny Nadal has played almost twice as many! Nadal has played 4 finals on clay, Fed 1.
Sure, I can clearly see how much fresher Nadal actually was.

Don't forget that Fed is still suffering from the effects of mono.

veroniquem
05-20-2009, 12:50 PM
Don't forget that Fed is still suffering from the effects of mono.
No, now it's bad back (he recycles his excuses every year)

oneleggedcardinal
05-20-2009, 12:52 PM
No, now it's bad back (he recycles his excuses every year)

Ouch! My knees!

sureshs
05-20-2009, 12:53 PM
No, now it's bad back (he recycles his excuses every year)

His FO loss this year will be due to attention diverted to Mirka and the baby. Madrid will become a proof of what he could have done if he was focused.

tudwell
05-20-2009, 12:53 PM
Nadal played 1 fewer match than Fed? Nadal has played 45 matches this season, Fed 32. Nadal has played 20 matches on clay so far, Fed 11. Funny Nadal has played almost twice as many! Nadal has played 4 finals on clay, Fed 1.
Sure, I can clearly see how much fresher Nadal actually was.

Federer has played 798 career matches. Nadal's played only 357. Clearly Federer is more worn out.

Tennis_Bum
05-20-2009, 12:55 PM
Nadal played 1 fewer match than Fed? Nadal has played 45 matches this season, Fed 32. Nadal has played 20 matches on clay so far, Fed 11. Funny Nadal has played almost twice as many! Nadal has played 4 finals on clay, Fed 1.
Sure, I can clearly see how much fresher Nadal actually was.

Again, you never stop amaze me to show little your head is. Yes, as far as the season goes, Nadal played a lot of tennis. If he is too tired to play an event, then don't show up. I was making reference to the matches in Madrid only. Stay on the topic. Obviously, if you have a successful season, then you are bound to play more total matches than anyone else, simply because you advance very deep into the tournaments and win many of them as Nadal did.

But stay on Madrid please. Again, if a 22 year top tennis player is too tired to play until the final, then he should either retire from the game or not play that tournament or take up golf instead.

mandy01
05-20-2009, 12:56 PM
I thought the topic of this thread was -
Do you still think Fed needs a coach?

jrod
05-20-2009, 01:08 PM
Sureshs- I think Fed made some adjustments in Madrid that helped him win. I also think the situation presented itself where a win was more viable than in other past clay court encounters with Nadal. However, I would not conclude that Fed would not benefit from the advice of a coach going forward.

What concerns me the most is this win could serve to reinforce Fed's view that he altered his tactics sufficiently to upset Rafa at the FO. If he truly believes this, I think we will see yet another defeat, assuming he even makes it to the finals.

Rafa is the one player that has proven time and time again he is willing and able to adapt his game, in real time if required. I do not see this kind of flexibility or willingness on the part of Federer in his approach to the game. His style and mindset are more aligned with that of a classical musician where the sheet music dictates what is played, and the execution is the only thing that alters the quality of the performance. In contrast, Rafa is the ultimate jazz player who can improvise his way through any piece without missing a beat.

Until we see this kind of flexibility and approach to the game from Federer, I'm afraid that Rafa will continue to have the upper hand on clay and likely other surfaces as well. A coach that understands the need to adapt his style in real time could help Federer gain more control of the outcome instead of having to rely on extenuating circumstances to help him achieve his goal of a FO title and/or breaking Sampras' record.

sureshs
05-20-2009, 01:10 PM
Again, you never stop amaze me to show little your head is. Yes, as far as the season goes, Nadal played a lot of tennis. If he is too tired to play an event, then don't show up. I was making reference to the matches in Madrid only. Stay on the topic. Obviously, if you have a successful season, then you are bound to play more total matches than anyone else, simply because you advance very deep into the tournaments and win many of them as Nadal did.

But stay on Madrid please. Again, if a 22 year top tennis player is too tired to play until the final, then he should either retire from the game or not play that tournament or take up golf instead.

If a 28 year old player keeps losing, he should not blame it, more than once, on mono and bad back, and that too strategically announce it after the loss but before the match is forgotten.

mandy01
05-20-2009, 01:18 PM
If a 28 year old player keeps losing, he should not blame it, more than once, on mono and bad back, and that too strategically announce it after the loss but before the match is forgotten. ROFL..This is such BS..Roger announced he had mono after he found out about it.And he spoke about his back problem after he decided to pull out of
two events ahead.He did not say he lost the AO because of the bad back.
According to his fitness trainer the troubles started after the final.He atleast did not feel any pain during the AO.

All-rounder
05-20-2009, 01:20 PM
Nadal played 1 fewer match than Fed? Nadal has played 45 matches this season, Fed 32. Nadal has played 20 matches on clay so far, Fed 11. Funny Nadal has played almost twice as many! Nadal has played 4 finals on clay, Fed 1.
Sure, I can clearly see how much fresher Nadal actually was.
He was referring to the madrid tourney not the whole clay court season Nadal had a walkover during Madrid federer didn't so even if nadal spent longer on the court that's his fault

veroniquem
05-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Again, you never stop amaze me to show little your head is. Yes, as far as the season goes, Nadal played a lot of tennis. If he is too tired to play an event, then don't show up. I was making reference to the matches in Madrid only. Stay on the topic. Obviously, if you have a successful season, then you are bound to play more total matches than anyone else, simply because you advance very deep into the tournaments and win many of them as Nadal did.

But stay on Madrid please. Again, if a 22 year top tennis player is too tired to play until the final, then he should either retire from the game or not play that tournament or take up golf instead.
4th final in a month (vs 1st final in 4 months) + 4 hour match with less than 24 hour recovery. It doesn't matter what the guy's name is, noone is limitless.
It's also a strategic choice of course, I'm sure Nadal didn't try to go "all out" in that final (it was clearly apparent to all observers) because he had no desire to jeopardize his RG chances over a less significant title.

380pistol
05-20-2009, 01:22 PM
Yes he needs a coach.

veroniquem
05-20-2009, 01:24 PM
He was referring to the madrid tourney not the whole clay court season Nadal had a walkover during Madrid federer didn't so even if nadal spent longer on the court that's his fault
He had a walk over but a much tougher draw as well. I wouldn't have liked the chances of Fed even making the final if he had had Nadal's draw.

doublebreak
05-20-2009, 01:26 PM
His tactical changes include playing close to the baseline to take time away from Nadal, frequent drop shots to punish Nadal for standing back, hitting higher loopy backhands to get the ball up higher, and attacking the Nadal backhand with his forehand when Nadal was expecting an inside-out. Aggression without resorting to serve and volley has been the theme.

Federer proved all of the armchair coaches here wrong, because they did not come up with these specific suggestions.

Do you really think any coach would have thought of these novel tactics? Would they just have been a waste of Fed's hard earned money? A diversion from his own reading of the game?

Despite all the cries for coaching, I think Fed proved everyone wrong. I don't think anyone can help him in the FO either, as no one came close to coming up with creative ideas for the Madrid final.

I've seen many people suggesting changes to his game around those lines. I posted my suggestions a couple of months ago (below) just for the sake of it, I don't claim to be a coach or anything remotely close. I think he can do great without a coach, it's just a matter of being less stubborn and trying a few different things. I'm glad he got this mental boost and maybe he can build on top of it.

I agree with pretty much all of it. If I was his coach I would work on getting the right mind set and work on a plan to be executed pretty much on any surface. It is clear Nadal will be around for awhile barring some catastrophic injury and that taking the FO from him would be a monumental achievement. He has to be realistic and decide what his goals are. In order to get the most majors record and if he wants to make an effort to regain the #1 spot he needs to change the way he plays against Nadal. He has to swallow his pride and forget about playing on his terms. He has to find ways to make Nadal uncomfortable, to make him think a little bit more, in other words, he has to take a look at some of Gilbert's pointers to win ugly. I see no other way. I would say he has to use a combination of aggression and variety. Offend with his weapons (fh and serve) and use variety with his bh and at net. Instincts are a big part of when to use what, but some systemic approach would help. I would offer the following ideas (of course some would not be very effective on clay, but what can you do on clay against Nadal anyway):

1. Years ago I would have said Federer needs to work on using a more extreme bh grip to deal with high balls. That's out of the question now. Variety is his main bh asset, he essentially has the same grip for volley, slice, and top spin bh, so you can't tell what he'll do from his back swing. He has to mix it up. Agree with taking it early and angle it cross court, but not a percentage shot. So, he should mix it with a dtl heavy deep slice into the corner and drop shots on both sides of the court. The idea is not to make him so comfortable that he can camp behind the baseline.

2. Volleys, yes. He should come in a lot more, he'll get passed many times but the key is variety again and some anticipation. To try to come in different ways. Behind a flat fh might be the worst choice. Federer needs to try some trickery, to sneak in late behind a weak bh and hit a volley on no mans land and make quick diagonal adjustments and hit half volleys. The key again is to make Nadal uncomfortable so that he has change his shot on a dime (from high deep to low angled, flat and deep is not common).

3. Slice is key, I disagree with going for the service line, it works on many players because but not Nadal. It has to be deep and heavy or drop shot (I know Fed doen't like them but they are key). With all the variety, you want Nadal to loose a fraction of a second in his reactions so that when Fed hits a heavy slice dtl, Nadal gets there and has to hit it well below his waist. Then that's where you jump on and go for a fh winner.

4. Serve must be working. If not, there's no chance. He has to hit aces and force errors and hold with relative ease.

5. Return, again, aggression and variety. Be aggressive on 2nd serves. Nadal serves to his bh all the time. Jump around it several times, he'll look like a fool sometimes but it's worth it. Make Nadal tweak his play book a little bit. Hit a drop shot off the return, chip and charge. It may seem desperate but it doesn't matter, desperate measures are required.

6. Forehand, think running angled cross court for a winner (maybe give Sampras a call). This shot must work if not he's toasted. He has to get some respect out of his fh so that he can cheat a little bit on his bh side and run around some of them. Variety of spins is good here too.

7. Movement, look at Murray. Be aggressive and get inside the baseline, move in diagonally and cut the angled shots and go for it.

8. Basically, make Nadal think. He has to break his focus somehow, at least weaken it a little bit. When Nadal plays Federer he's on auto pilot, he need to change that, make him hesitate, surprise him. Murray is fairly successful at that sometimes. Federer definitely has the hands and the ability to bring a little unpredictability on his game. His bh is never going to be a weapon, but is good enough to have a good mix of shots.

Hopefully he has the drive to improve and work and at least make those matches much more interesting.

sureshs
05-20-2009, 01:28 PM
^^^ good job. You scored in 2 areas: drop shot and standing close to the baseline. Not bad at all.

velkov
05-20-2009, 01:29 PM
Fed needs a coach for sure - otherwise again letdown at rg !!

veroniquem
05-20-2009, 01:29 PM
Federer has played 798 career matches. Nadal's played only 357. Clearly Federer is more worn out.
Nadal has actually played 457 matches.

mandy01
05-20-2009, 01:31 PM
4th final in a month (vs 1st final in 4 months) + 4 hour match with less than 24 hour recovery. It doesn't matter what the guy's name is, noone is limitless.
It's also a strategic choice of course, I'm sure Nadal didn't try to go "all out" in that final (it was clearly apparent to all observers) because he had no desire to jeopardize his RG chances over a less significant title.
In that case,Roger was also too tired to beat Nadal in Rome 06 final because of his battle with Nalby(true it wasnt looong but then that could be due points played faster and no medical time-outs:wink:)
Obviously he was winning like crazy that year.

bruce38
05-20-2009, 01:36 PM
Isn't Nadal the one now complaining that the tennis year is too tough? Didn't Federer just manage almost 4 consecutive years at #1? Nadal is just a whiner, he has to play all out to get the results he gets. Meanwhile Fed is only now showing signs of injury at 28. i.e. Fed had to work a lot less harder to achieve what he did. He is excessively more skilled. Anytime he loses he will always be too tired. Had he won Madrid, it would have been more false praise and saying look how tired I was yet I STILL managed to beat you. Pathetic.

bruce38
05-20-2009, 01:37 PM
Nadal has actually played 457 matches.

798 >>> 457.

mandy01
05-20-2009, 01:39 PM
Isn't Nadal the one now complaining that the tennis year is too tough? Didn't Federer just manage almost 4 consecutive years at #1? Nadal is just a whiner, he has to play all out to get the results he gets. Meanwhile Fed is only now showing signs of injury at 28. i.e. Fed had to work a lot less harder to achieve what he did. He is excessively more skilled. Anytime he loses he will always be too tired. Had he won Madrid, it would have been more false praise and saying look how tired I was yet I STILL managed to beat you. Pathetic. Dont agree with this at all...this is too subjective and not factual in any sense.
Rest of your post-Well..again its how we look at it.but I dont disagree there,for sure.

mandy01
05-20-2009, 01:40 PM
798 >>> 457. Nadal's number is still pretty high..but he plays more tourney's so he has to bear its consequences-good or bad.

bruce38
05-20-2009, 02:00 PM
Nadal's number is still pretty high..but he plays more tourney's so he has to bear its consequences-good or bad.

Yes but he did complain about the season being too tough and having to defend so much. He does not need to play so much, it's his choice. Even if he did not defend so much he would still maintain number as long as he wins the majority of what he enters. So agreed, he has to bear the consequences, but then he should not complain about it.

sureshs
05-20-2009, 04:14 PM
High caliber players like world #1 who go deep into every tournament, pull in the crowds, keep the sport monetarily feasible in this economy, etc. have every right to voice their concerns about the schedule. Nadal is also on the ATP players council and is obligated to voice the concerns of hard working players. Other players who don't win any tournaments for months don't face such issues.

P_Agony
05-20-2009, 04:19 PM
No, now it's bad back (he recycles his excuses every year)

Funny. When Fed suffers from a bad back or mono - those are just excuses.

When Nadal losses a match, saying he was tired isn't an excuse, it's a legit reason.

The hypocrisy here is growing by the minute.

veroniquem
05-20-2009, 04:31 PM
Isn't Nadal the one now complaining that the tennis year is too tough? Didn't Federer just manage almost 4 consecutive years at #1? Nadal is just a whiner, he has to play all out to get the results he gets. Meanwhile Fed is only now showing signs of injury at 28. i.e. Fed had to work a lot less harder to achieve what he did. He is excessively more skilled. Anytime he loses he will always be too tired. Had he won Madrid, it would have been more false praise and saying look how tired I was yet I STILL managed to beat you. Pathetic.
Clay court tennis is more physically demanding than hard court tennis. Also big servers spend less energy in rallies than others. What else is new? Thank god, not all players are big servers because tennis would become the most boring sport on the planet and no channel would ever show even 5 minutes of it.
As far as fitness and stamina are concerned, the most complicated feat is to sweep the grass season after sweeping the clay one. In 2008 Nadal won 4 clay events and 2 grass ones, 6 tournaments in all in less than 3 months (of which 2 masters and 2 slams). That is way more difficult than winning a couple hard court events in the winter, a couple more in the summer and in the fall. The hard court events are spaced out at comfortable intervals.
Nadal didn't just OWN clay and grass in 2008, he also won some major titles on hard, he's a fitness and endurance monster.
Now about Madrid, who would recover easily from an intense 4 hour match in less than 24 hours (coming toward the end of a season after a lot of matches played)? Nobody. So there is absolutely no reason to single out Nadal in this discussion because nobody would.

veroniquem
05-20-2009, 04:36 PM
Yes but he did complain about the season being too tough and having to defend so much. He does not need to play so much, it's his choice. Even if he did not defend so much he would still maintain number as long as he wins the majority of what he enters. So agreed, he has to bear the consequences, but then he should not complain about it.
He actually needs to play that much. All top players have to play around 20 tournaments every year. Nadal plays strictly what he has to, nothing more, nothing less.

sureshs
05-20-2009, 04:42 PM
He actually needs to play that much. All top players have to play around 20 tournaments every year. Nadal plays strictly what he has to, nothing more, nothing less.

That is right. No fancy exhibition matches for him in 5 star resorts around the world with tons of appearance money. Just plain old hard work.

tennisplaya
05-20-2009, 06:41 PM
Whilst Federer played some good tactics it still will not be enough When Nadal converts the break points next time so he still needs a coach.

tennisplaya
05-20-2009, 06:44 PM
I thought some guy called Luthi was his coach, why are people not crediting Luthi with Federer's new tactics?

tennis_hand
05-20-2009, 07:00 PM
His tactical changes include playing close to the baseline to take time away from Nadal, frequent drop shots to punish Nadal for standing back, hitting higher loopy backhands to get the ball up higher, and attacking the Nadal backhand with his forehand when Nadal was expecting an inside-out. Aggression without resorting to serve and volley has been the theme.

Federer proved all of the armchair coaches here wrong, because they did not come up with these specific suggestions.

Do you really think any coach would have thought of these novel tactics? Would they just have been a waste of Fed's hard earned money? A diversion from his own reading of the game?

Despite all the cries for coaching, I think Fed proved everyone wrong. I don't think anyone can help him in the FO either, as no one came close to coming up with creative ideas for the Madrid final.

he needs a coach.

let's be pragmatic: the madrid win is probably just 1 win out of many losses on clay.
if not because of the Djokovic match, if not because Fed executed perfectly some of his shots, he wouldn't have won. However, u can't depend on a long Nadal match every time, and u can't depend on good execution every time. what if his plan doesn't work and he starts to have many UEs? does he have a plan B to reduce his UEs, and just to stick with Nadal game by game?

veroniquem
05-20-2009, 07:04 PM
That is right. No fancy exhibition matches for him in 5 star resorts around the world with tons of appearance money. Just plain old hard work.
Exhibition matches are not what makes a player tired, competition matches are. Anyway he plays very few exhibitions, really very few, so I have no idea where that remark comes from.

sh@de
05-20-2009, 07:11 PM
I dunno what the role of Luthi is at the moment. If he was the one behind Fed's change in strategies, then maybe Fed doesn't need a coach... but I'm still of the opinion Fed should get a full time coach. Preferably one which'll make him understand the need to constantly adjust his game on the fly when against Nadal, because you've got to keep Nadal guessing when you play against him. I think a coach will help a lot as he can give Fed more confidence and help him establish clear cut game plans, and more importantly, multiple game plans. It just doesn't seem to me that Fed's the type of person who goes into a game with multiple game plans. He needs that against Nadal.

sureshs
05-21-2009, 05:34 AM
Exhibition matches are not what makes a player tired, competition matches are. Anyway he plays very few exhibitions, really very few, so I have no idea where that remark comes from.

Already forgot Federer's exos with Sampras?

NamRanger
05-21-2009, 09:23 AM
Clay court tennis is more physically demanding than hard court tennis. Also big servers spend less energy in rallies than others. What else is new? Thank god, not all players are big servers because tennis would become the most boring sport on the planet and no channel would ever show even 5 minutes of it.
As far as fitness and stamina are concerned, the most complicated feat is to sweep the grass season after sweeping the clay one. In 2008 Nadal won 4 clay events and 2 grass ones, 6 tournaments in all in less than 3 months (of which 2 masters and 2 slams). That is way more difficult than winning a couple hard court events in the winter, a couple more in the summer and in the fall. The hard court events are spaced out at comfortable intervals.
Nadal didn't just OWN clay and grass in 2008, he also won some major titles on hard, he's a fitness and endurance monster.
Now about Madrid, who would recover easily from an intense 4 hour match in less than 24 hours (coming toward the end of a season after a lot of matches played)? Nobody. So there is absolutely no reason to single out Nadal in this discussion because nobody would.




Edberg played a 2 long 5 setters against Chang and Lendl (two of the fittest players ever) at the USO, on hardcourts which severely do more damage to your joints. He clocked more time than Nadal at the AO, with well over 20 hours of time and still manage to beat Sampras in the final.



I'm sorry, no excuses. It is Nadal's fault for getting behind. He should have blow right past Djokovic. Everyone wants to put a hypothetical situation where Nadal is always at his best. Well guess what, in pro tennis, you don't always show up at your best. You have to find ways to win when you are not playing or you are at your best. Nadal didn't that day. He admits it. Why can't you or Nadal fans?

drakulie
05-21-2009, 09:28 AM
Nadal played 1 fewer match than Fed? Nadal has played 45 matches this season, Fed 32. Nadal has played 20 matches on clay so far, Fed 11. Funny Nadal has played almost twice as many! Nadal has played 4 finals on clay, Fed 1.



Poor baby. :(

Cesc Fabregas
05-21-2009, 09:54 AM
Edberg played a 2 long 5 setters against Chang and Lendl (two of the fittest players ever) at the USO, on hardcourts which severely do more damage to your joints. He clocked more time than Nadal at the AO, with well over 20 hours of time and still manage to beat Sampras in the final.



I'm sorry, no excuses. It is Nadal's fault for getting behind. He should have blow right past Djokovic. Everyone wants to put a hypothetical situation where Nadal is always at his best. Well guess what, in pro tennis, you don't always show up at your best. You have to find ways to win when you are not playing or you are at your best. Nadal didn't that day. He admits it. Why can't you or Nadal fans?

I am not taking anything away from Edberg but he plays a less demanding style than Nadal.

drakulie
05-21-2009, 09:55 AM
^^You obvioulsy have never played all-out serve and volley.

Cesc Fabregas
05-21-2009, 09:57 AM
^^You obvioulsy have never played all-out serve and volley.

You think that is more demanding that scrambling 6 feet behind the baseline :confused:

tudwell
05-21-2009, 10:00 AM
Nadal jogs along the baseline. Edberg dashed to net, jumped, dived, lunged, stopped, backpedaled, chased down lobs. It's incomparable really. The baseline game is much easier on the body.

Cesc Fabregas
05-21-2009, 10:03 AM
Nadal jogs along the baseline. Edberg dashed to net, jumped, dived, lunged, stopped, backpedaled, chased down lobs. It's incomparable really. The baseline game is much easier on the body.

Did you watch Nadal's match against Verdasco? he got so far pushed behind the baseline and was playing defensive tennis for 5 hours that is extremly demanding.

tudwell
05-21-2009, 10:10 AM
Did you watch Nadal's match against Verdasco? he got so far pushed behind the baseline and was playing defensive tennis for 5 hours that is extremly demanding.

Like I said, jogging behind the baseline.

The reason people say serve-and-volley is easier on the body is because typically the points are shorter. But if a match lasts over 5 hours (like, I believe, the Edberg-Change match did) it doesn't matter how short the points are. It's the same overall amount of tennis. If the points were shorter, then they played more points. Either way, Edberg was a beast to win the 1992 U.S. Open and saying he played a style of tennis that was easier on the body is not only wrong but also wrongly diminishes Edberg's feat.

drakulie
05-21-2009, 10:19 AM
You think that is more demanding that scrambling 6 feet behind the baseline :confused:


I don't "think">> I know, because I have played both styles. They are both in their own way, extremely demanding.

Try sprinting full speed, stopping on a dime, and changing directions about 200 times.

Let me know if you are tired or not. I'll wait a few years before you get back to me, since it is obvious you have never played tennis.

tonyg11
05-21-2009, 11:02 AM
^^You obvioulsy have never played all-out serve and volley.

S & V is mentally less stressfull. To grind baseline for 5 hours is a mental marathon.

Cesc Fabregas
05-21-2009, 11:25 AM
I don't "think">> I know, because I have played both styles. They are both in their own way, extremely demanding.

Try sprinting full speed, stopping on a dime, and changing directions about 200 times.

Let me know if you are tired or not. I'll wait a few years before you get back to me, since it is obvious you have never played tennis.

So you have playing grinding baseline tennis for 5 hours in the searing of Australia :confused: