PDA

View Full Version : Whom must Federer hire as a coach?


Aykhan Mammadov
06-17-2006, 02:47 PM
When I watch those old matches as today between Borg and Gerulaitis I laugh. This is old, very slow tennis ( it is why it is full of great points). I don't want to say those players are not great, no.

But those old champions can teach Federer nothing including Roche. In order to win FO he must hire somebody from fresh list ( who reached the final at FO or won it). Imagine, even Kafelnikov - recent FO champion ( recent means of last 10 years) told there is nothing he can advise to Federer, only be patient, because atacking tennis doesn't win on clay ( Sampras, Becker, McEnroe and etc...).

Who are possible contenders ? I seriosly think about: Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander.

127mph
06-17-2006, 02:59 PM
wilander doesnt seem to think federer is good or something. says safin more talented than federer, says fed has no balls and says nadal is already one of the greats, wonder why he doesnt like fed so much.

OrangeOne
06-17-2006, 03:21 PM
But those old champions can teach Federer nothing including Roche. In order to win FO he must hire somebody from fresh list ( who reached the final at FO or won it).
[snip]
Who are possible contenders ? I seriosly think about: Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander.

Aykhan I think it's important to understand the difference between a great player and a great coach.

A great player is someone who is highly skilled, highly fit, understands the game, is mentally tough, can execute well, and (often) is receptive to great coaching.

A great coach is someone who understands the game, understands the players playing the game, and can assist and guide a great player towards their goals.

To be a great clay-court coach, you do not have to have "reached the FO final or won it". This is completely irrelevant. You need to understand clay-court tennis and understand the players that are playing it. Roche is one of the greatest coaches of all time, he coached lendl to 2 wimbledon finals amongst a million other wins, he coached rafter to some amazing wins and finals, and he has coached Federer to within a few % of Nadal, who may go down in history as one of the better clay-courters to play the game. Federer should have won in Rome, and by all reports he had a bad match in the FO final. Great players can have bad days, and in a sport like tennis where coaching is illegal during a match, great coaches can do little about it.

NB. This doesn't mean I don't think the players you mentioned might make great coaches, but it does mean I think Roche is great for Federer. I know you don't think Lendl is one of the greats, but many do, and I see it as no coincidence that two of the greats (imho) have chosen the same coach!

Aykhan Mammadov
06-18-2006, 11:55 AM
OrangeOne, I understand what u want to tell and what u have just told. This is common opinion.

Meanwhile I don't believe this opinion much. It is not possible to teach mathematics if u don't know it yourself. Yes, u can support a player, u can relax him psychologically, u can be his friend, but if u never reached the final or close, if u are not a great player yrself how and what will u advise a player ?

HollerOne5
06-18-2006, 12:00 PM
wilander doesnt seem to think federer is good or something. says safin more talented than federer, says fed has no balls and says nadal is already one of the greats, wonder why he doesnt like fed so much.

Its a matter of opinion. Many feel that Safin has the most raw talent out there, but he's such a mental headcase that he only demonstrates moments of brilliance, rather than consistency. I think even Federer can admit that on a given day, Marat could destroy him. But the same could be said vice versa.

I don't know if Nadal is one of the greats, but the rest of the ATP tour has made him look like one of the greats, seeing how he has able to beat Federer 6 times during his reign as number one, while no one else can seem to touch him. So that alone would be cause for suggesting it, but he has to prove himself at other slams first.

Maybe Wilander thinks that Federer is overrated and a bit lucky like many of us feel? Honestly, Federer picked a perfect time to rack up some GS wins

Aykhan Mammadov
06-18-2006, 12:03 PM
wilander doesnt seem to think federer is good or something. says safin more talented than federer, says fed has no balls and says nadal is already one of the greats, wonder why he doesnt like fed so much.

Wilander is one of the most boring and untalented players of all times. We just mention his name because by the rock of the history he won 8 GS. The same is Lendl.

Such a player as Wilander never could win Wimbledon ( as well as Lendl) despite tremendous efforts, desire, coach Roche and etc... Because they never knew how to play tennis, what they knew are separate strokes, techniques without feeling of the game.

I just wrote their name because in order to win RG u must be very 1-dimensional player, patient horse with big endurance, very stupid ( at least for RG time period), just hitting the ball back. In this meaning Wilander or Lendl could help genius Federer to stop be genius and to win this f..g FO.

TennisDog
06-18-2006, 12:06 PM
Someone from this message board because theyre all such experts

Aykhan Mammadov
06-18-2006, 12:06 PM
Coming to Safin - he never knew what tennis is, he has got natural strength and hard ball hitting ability. Just look - is there any player to whom he didn't lose ?

exruda
06-18-2006, 12:07 PM
I just wrote their name because in order to win RG u must be very 1-dimensional player, patient horse with big endurance, very stupid ( at least for RG time period), just hitting the ball back. In this meaning Wilander or Lendl could help genius Federer to stop be genius and to win this f..g FO.

ROTFL :D good one

sureshs
06-18-2006, 01:14 PM
Roche is definitely not a good choice for Fed on clay. He needs a more recent power baseline player as his coach. I am 100% sure he will never hire a US player.

Have there been any recent-past one-handed backhand players to win the FO? Guga is too young.

Simon Cowell
06-18-2006, 01:35 PM
Brad Gilbert would be a fine choice for Federer indeed.

Dan007
06-18-2006, 01:39 PM
Brad Gilbert would be a fine choice for Federer indeed.

He would be, but I think Fed doesn't like him because he talks to much.

Warriorroger
06-18-2006, 01:44 PM
Brad Gilbert would be a fine choice for Federer indeed.

Stupid suggestion, but not surprising coming from you.

framebreaker
06-18-2006, 02:02 PM
Brad Gilbert would be a fine choice for Federer indeed.
everybody that acknowledges Nadal's game is in touch with tennis reality.
When I hear former tennis stars (nastase etc- spelled correctly?) and how they praise Federer and how they undervalue Nadal's tennis i have to say that these people are out of touch with todays tennis.
Roche said in an interview that he doesn't like the new generation of tennis players with their fancy grips (not a quote!)
Well, hello, this is called modern tennis. and modern tennis is dominating this game. so, how can someone that has such a close minded and intollerant view of tennis help Fderer i any way????

rhubarb
06-18-2006, 02:05 PM
I agree that a clay court coach doesn't necessarily have to be a former French winner, but don't forget Rochey actually *did* win Roland Garros, in fact it was the only singles slam he won.

Brad Gilbert would be the absolute worst choice for Federer to make, purely on personality grounds. I'm sure he wouldn't ever seriously consider him.

OrangeOne
06-18-2006, 02:20 PM
I agree that a clay court coach doesn't necessarily have to be a former French winner, but don't forget Rochey actually *did* win Roland Garros, in fact it was the only singles slam he won.

Very good point - Roche won it in 1966. How could we all have missed this fact? I guess this is the ultimate answer to the original question! Well done rhubarb! :D

OrangeOne
06-18-2006, 02:52 PM
OrangeOne, I understand what u want to tell and what u have just told. This is common opinion.

Meanwhile I don't believe this opinion much. It is not possible to teach mathematics if u don't know it yourself. Yes, u can support a player, u can relax him psychologically, u can be his friend, but if u never reached the final or close, if u are not a great player yrself how and what will u advise a player ?

Teaching mathematics is different, very different, to coaching sport. Teaching mathematics or complex science, in fact, are two of the key areas where one does have to 'know it' to teach it, at least in the 99% of cases.

To think that only great players can make great coaches is flawed. Consider the following:

1. One doesn't coach someone to "win a grand slam".

A coach (in regard to playing tennis, I know they do much more than this too, but for the sake of this point):

coaches a player to play many different styles of points.
teaches a player to implement many different types of strategies.
helps a player to understand the strengths, weaknesses and likely game-plan of an opponent


It's impossible to coach someone to "win a grand slam", and thus having won a slam yourself is irrelevant. A coach needs to understand how to win points, put together many points, implement strategies - that's what wins matches. Winning a slam - that's a goal, not a coachable skill, it's not a component you can do a lesson on - it's the sum of many, many goals added together.

2. Physically, only a miniscule percentage of people have what it takes to be in the top few in the world. The number of players who *almost* make it to satellite tournaments or *almost* make it to the tour, or *almost* make it on the tour, and fail due to their body - you would never believe. Coaching has nothing to do with physicality, and everything to do with intellect. There is nothing to say that those few who have the body to make it have the brains too, although in some cases it may...

3. To think that someone who isn't a 'great player' can mostly offer "support, psychological relaxing and friendship' is so amazingly limited. Aykhan - I have coached junior tennis (and other sports too), and I put to you this: If you are smart, tennis-aware, and you spend the next two years of your life coaching & studying tennis, *you* could offer Federer much more that those three things!

4. Many (most) of the greats do no want to go into coaching at the top level. Think back on the greats, on the big slam winners - how many are coaching today? Not many... making the market you are scouring such a limited one.

5. Let's look at history - who have the great professional coaches of the last few years been? None of them *have* been past massive winners, partially related to point 4 above, and partially as great players do not necessarily make great coaches! Have a look at other sports too, big $ professional sports - and you'll see the same holds true.

6. Coaching is a completely different skill to playing, and this applies to almost any sport! There is nothing to say that the possession of one skill will correlate to the possession of the other.

VictorS.
06-18-2006, 03:54 PM
Tony Roche has a wealth of coaching experience and I wouldn't discount his expertise. Obviously he's more of a serve and volley specialist as a player and that is what he focused on with Ivan Lendl when he was working with him. I definitely wouldn't get rid of Roche however, maybe Federer should hire a clay court consultant for the clay season next year?

Federer The G.O.A.T.!
06-18-2006, 08:14 PM
Teaching mathematics is different, very different, to coaching sport. Teaching mathematics or complex science, in fact, are two of the key areas where one does have to 'know it' to teach it, at least in the 99% of cases.

To think that only great players can make great coaches is flawed. Consider the following:

1. One doesn't coach someone to "win a grand slam".

A coach (in regard to playing tennis, I know they do much more than this too, but for the sake of this point):

coaches a player to play many different styles of points.
teaches a player to implement many different types of strategies.
helps a player to understand the strengths, weaknesses and likely game-plan of an opponent


It's impossible to coach someone to "win a grand slam", and thus having won a slam yourself is irrelevant. A coach needs to understand how to win points, put together many points, implement strategies - that's what wins matches. Winning a slam - that's a goal, not a coachable skill, it's not a component you can do a lesson on - it's the sum of many, many goals added together.

2. Physically, only a miniscule percentage of people have what it takes to be in the top few in the world. The number of players who *almost* make it to satellite tournaments or *almost* make it to the tour, or *almost* make it on the tour, and fail due to their body - you would never believe. Coaching has nothing to do with physicality, and everything to do with intellect. There is nothing to say that those few who have the body to make it have the brains too, although in some cases it may...

3. To think that someone who isn't a 'great player' can mostly offer "support, psychological relaxing and friendship' is so amazingly limited. Aykhan - I have coached junior tennis (and other sports too), and I put to you this: If you are smart, tennis-aware, and you spend the next two years of your life coaching & studying tennis, *you* could offer Federer much more that those three things!

4. Many (most) of the greats do no want to go into coaching at the top level. Think back on the greats, on the big slam winners - how many are coaching today? Not many... making the market you are scouring such a limited one.

5. Let's look at history - who have the great professional coaches of the last few years been? None of them *have* been past massive winners, partially related to point 4 above, and partially as great players do not necessarily make great coaches! Have a look at other sports too, big $ professional sports - and you'll see the same holds true.

6. Coaching is a completely different skill to playing, and this applies to almost any sport! There is nothing to say that the possession of one skill will correlate to the possession of the other.Insightful post you have there.

Match Point
06-18-2006, 09:59 PM
Federer needs to train with left handed player so perhaps John McEnroe would be a wise choice even though he was a runner at the French.

OrangeOne
06-18-2006, 10:08 PM
Federer needs to train with left handed player so perhaps John McEnroe would be a wise choice even though he was a runner at the French.

Match Point I think there you're mistaking "coach" and "hitting partner".

A coach does all of the things I've mentioned in previous posts, a hitting partner, well it's pretty self-explanatory.

Sure, Rochey does hit with Fed & do some simulated-player hitting stuff, but MOST of Fed's training would be against a hitting partner, often under the supervision of a coach. This person (people) are those who a player trains against day-in, day-out. I don't know, but I'd be guessing Fed has a few different hitting partners, and he'd be silly if one of them wasn't a lefty.

Additionally, and I assume you're thinking of the Nadal-issue when you suggest the lefty-hitting-partner (not that I'm aware Fed is especially weak against other lefties), but I'd point out that while McEnroe is indeed a lefty, his game otherwise couldn't be more dissimilar to Nadal's game if he tried, removing any benefit you were looking for I'd think....

rhubarb
06-18-2006, 11:06 PM
Federer needs to train with left handed player so perhaps John McEnroe would be a wise choice even though he was a runner at the French.

And Roche is left-handed.

OrangeOne
06-18-2006, 11:16 PM
And Roche is left-handed.

Again rhubarb, you pull out the blindingly-brilliant Roche fact :D. Again, I applaud you!

HyperHorse
06-19-2006, 03:23 AM
my ideal coach for Federer during claycourt season...
Thomas Muster.

nSLICE
06-19-2006, 06:44 AM
who's saying a clay courter would be an amazing coach for him i think is totally wrong. main reason is that Federer is not a true clay courter, he doesn't stand 30 feet behind the baseline, so hiring a clay court player as a coach would be completely against his strength since Federer is an all court player who likes to move in, unlike for example Muster. I personally think he just needs someone who can knock into his head that he can beat Nadal. I just dont think anymore that he thinks he could beat him. And his tacticts against Nadal are not the greatest.

flymeng
06-19-2006, 01:38 PM
Toni Nadal.

fastdunn
06-19-2006, 01:55 PM
I think only thing missing from Federer's game is the net game.
So Tony Roche was good logical choice. But we never know if
it was really Federer's intention to fortify his net game.
Maybe Federer just wanted have him around and get some
insights/wisdoms..

Eviscerator
06-19-2006, 02:18 PM
:roll:

Hmmm lets see, Federer is #1 in the world, came in runner up to the best clay court player out there, but he still should get rid of his coach:confused:

OrangeOne
06-19-2006, 02:18 PM
Toni Nadal.

Interesting selection, creative and unique.

Has he won the french or been runner-up numerous times? Is he a natural clay-courter? Does he play left-handed?

If so - he could be the perfect replacement, and Roger should seriously call him and discuss terms ;)

exruda
06-19-2006, 02:26 PM
IHas he won the french or been runner-up numerous times? Is he a natural clay-courter? Does he play left-handed?

Well then, if we continue this way of thinking, there's only one perfect candidate: Rafa! :mrgreen:

Aykhan Mammadov
06-19-2006, 02:41 PM
To post 17.

We can discuss endlessly. But here are some thoughts concerning yr reasoning.

1. U wrote what must can do a coach, but doesn't it seem to u that the same thing thousands of coaches do for thousands of PRO players and even for junior players. Then what does differ one coach from another if they do the same job?

I'll tell. IMHO coaches for junior tennis is not equal with coaches for PRO players. On junior stage they differ from each other with patience, accuracy, attention to strokes they set up and etc....

On PRO tour stage players need PRO coaches, and these coaches are different also. Coaches having reached great results must know and understand more in tennis, they know some details which they got from experience brought them to great victories and what is not written in tennis books.

2. Tennis - u are correct - is not mathematics=endless science helping us to watch satellite TV and typing here in the internet. Tennis is MUCH MUCH more primitive field of human activity, sport. All a few doezns strokes in tennis, and all a few doezns strategies are well known. So don't OVERESTIMATE coaches with their explanations of strokes, strategies and etc... What coaches did they already did during junior years. It is why Federer refused from the coach for a few years and still was winning slams.

So in general there is nothing a coach can teach Federer. So those 3 jobs which must do a coach and which u listed are useless already for Fed and many other players. Some of them keep coaches just as a habit, just keeping a team, somebody for a psychological support, sometimes for a psychological affect onto opponents. Some keep just uncles, fathers, mothers. Some keep them as somebody doing analysys which a player can do without them also. IMHO, only great player knows some details and may become somehow useful.

Maybe even he hired Roche as a psychological affect to his opponents.

3. Now coming to Roche - 1 time RG winner ( the fact that I didn't know) - so why not to hire those who played at comparatively recent times ( not 40 !!! years ago when tennis was close to bamdinton) and who is many times RG winner, not a 1 slam wonder ( as Cash in W, as Costa, as Johansson in AO, and many others) ?

OrangeOne
06-19-2006, 02:59 PM
Well then, if we continue this way of thinking, there's only one perfect candidate: Rafa! :mrgreen:

Wow - he *does* meet the qualifications. Fed should interview him for the job too ;)

OrangeOne
06-19-2006, 03:31 PM
I'll tell. IMHO coaches for junior tennis is not equal with coaches for PRO players. On junior stage they differ from each other with patience, accuracy, attention to strokes they set up and etc....

On PRO tour stage players need PRO coaches, and these coaches are different also. Coaches having reached great results must know and understand more in tennis, they know some details which they got from experience brought them to great victories and what is not written in tennis books.

Of course there are different roles for junior and professional coaches, but let's not forget that some junior coaches grow with their players to become successful professional coaches (is Justine still with her junior coach? I think so! This scenario happens often).

Anyways - again re: your theory that coaches must have achieved great results:

a. If this truly the case, can you please explain why so many recognised coaches of successful players have not won anything major at all - have not been elite players? (eg. Justine's coach, Hingis's coach, Agassi's coaches, there's hundreds more)

b. And on the flipside - and also as I said last time - if retiring players choose not to become coaches, then how will we ever find enough coaches for our professionals who are to be respected? (and often the better ones don't become coaches, at least not "professional coaches" - most seem more likely to start junior academys, possibly because they're sick of the travelling-lifestyle). By your logic, the only good coaches are multi-slam-winners - that means there's very few potential coaches!!

All a few doezns strokes in tennis, and all a few doezns strategies are well known. So don't OVERESTIMATE coaches with their explanations of strokes, strategies and etc... What coaches did they already did during junior years.

You'll note I didn't actually mention explanation of strokes as a thing that a professional coach does. I said :

* coaches a player to play many different styles of points.
* teaches a player to implement many different types of strategies.
* helps a player to understand the strengths, weaknesses and likely game-plan of an opponent

....although it would equally be wrong to think that, on occasion, a coach will not work with a player on a troublesome stroke, at any level. But the three things I said about - were in the context of professional players and their tennis game, and I believe wholeheartedly that the above form a large part of what a professional player looks for from a professional coach.

It is why Federer refused from the coach for a few years and still was winning slams.

No, I disagree. Federer kept winning without a coach, and thus decided he didn't need one! For much of that time, he has been so far and away the best player that he's probably right! Also - it probably took much time to find the right person...

So in general there is nothing a coach can teach Federer. So those 3 jobs which must do a coach and which u listed are useless already for Fed and many other players.

I'm sorry - but if you really think this - then we are at an impass. Again - as in the other thread on "greatness", we will have to agree to disagree.

Some of them keep coaches just as a habit, just keeping a team, somebody for a psychological support, sometimes for a psychological affect onto opponents. Some keep just uncles, fathers, mothers. Some keep them as somebody doing analysys which a player can do without them also. IMHO, only great player knows some details and may become somehow useful.

Maybe even he hired Roche as a psychological affect to his opponents.


That's completely bizarre. You think

a. Federer (or any player) hires a coach for psychological effect?
b. Tony Roche, who isn't a young man, would be happy wasting his time travelling the world and sitting in a box and standing in the sun etc etc for psychological affect?

3. Now coming to Roche - 1 time RG winner ( the fact that I didn't know) - so why not to hire those who played at comparatively recent times ( not 40 !!! years ago when tennis was close to bamdinton)

Have you seen how much respect Federer and almost every other serious professional has for the history of the game? Federer's respect for Laver is immense, Agassi refers to himself as a "student of the game", and that includes it's history. I choose to understand that the game evolves, and respect the game over the years. Tennis close to badminton? A very silly thing to say.

Aykhan Mammadov
06-19-2006, 04:09 PM
OrangeOne,

it is pleasure to argue with u, but I'm really tired and will not be able to continue this argument any more. Just last breathes.

Do u really think that Agassi's coach can teach Agassi something he doesn't know ? Or do u really think Roche at 61 really can teach Fed something? Roche maybe even forgot already how it is done. This is in which our opinions don't coincide.

I consider some players just keep their old coaches by inertia, just as friends. As a team, they don't want to break up with people who teached and helped them for a long time. Some really keep mothers, fathers and etc...

Who is Agassi's tennis coach ? I know last was Gilbert? I mean not general coach for physical conditioning. Who was then? Who is Roddics', Gaudio's, Kuerten's, Coria's, Davydenko's ? Do u think they really now teach them something ? Who is Sharapova's ? Her father is a PRO ? Who is Williams' ? Mother and father ? Nadal's ? His uncle ? Is he great player - his uncle ?

Or maybe Henman's is great ? His family? Do u think Ljubiic brings his coach because he teaches him now to something new? Who is Baghdatis' coach? That young boy ? Where is Santoro's coach? Don't see.

sureshs
06-19-2006, 04:19 PM
I have seen a 1 hr program on coaches on TTC. Apart from coaching, they do many things like arranging practice partners, getting the racquets strung, finding last minute partners for doubles players, booking practice courts, handling transportation, scouting opponents etc. The top players have mgmt company agents doing some of this stuff, but others need to get this done thru their coach (or at least get some help from them in these matters) or do all this on their own, which prevents focusing on their game.

OrangeOne
06-19-2006, 07:40 PM
it is pleasure to argue with u, but I'm really tired and will not be able to continue this argument any more. Just last breathes.

I appreciate your efforts ;)

Do u really think that Agassi's coach can teach Agassi something he doesn't know ? Or do u really think Roche at 61 really can teach Fed something? Roche maybe even forgot already how it is done. This is in which our opinions don't coincide.

Yes, as I maintain everyone always has something to learn. Now, obviously in Agassi or Fed's case it's only going to be 'in the detail', but they still have something to learn. Equally, I'm sure Federer and Agassi would have massive input into their discussions with their coach, they aren't going to be 'passive pupils, taking in what their coach says.

Never forget that a coach is, to a much larger extent, "outside the fishbowl" - they aren't the player, so they immediately have a more subjective & neutral perspective, which is a good basis for assessment, and subsequent teaching.

A player can watch a video of their match 100 times, and still be feeling the same emotions he/she did at the time, and not get outside of those emotions to see the bigger picture, realise what is going on.

I consider some players just keep their old coaches by inertia, just as friends. As a team, they don't want to break up with people who teached and helped them for a long time. Some really keep mothers, fathers and etc...


Sometimes, sure. But not often at the highest levels.

Nadal's ? His uncle ? Is he great player - his uncle ?

Hey - you are tired - because you've just made my point for me! :) My point is that you don't have to have been a great player to be a great coach, and the fact that Nadal's uncle wasn't (to my knowledge) a great player - isn't currently limiting him from coaching Nadal. Don't think that a 19 year old - however powerful - can beat players like Hewitt and Federer without good sound coaching.

I have a challenge for you when you next take up this debate:

What, in your opinion, is the sort of "magic advice" that a recent, multiple FO winner, could give to Federer that would better assist him than any other coaching option? Sure, you're not a multiple FO winner so you won't know, but even the sort of advice?

As far as I'm concerned, as I said before, one doesn't coach someone to win a FO, one coaches someone to win many points to win many games and then 3 sets against 7 different players. I think this is a massive difference in our thinking.

I don't think, therefore, there is any unique advice they could give. But I'm keen to hear your (or anyone elses' thoughts) as to what sort of advice this would be, and WHY it could only come from a recent, multiple FO winner.

Federer The G.O.A.T.!
06-19-2006, 08:18 PM
Orange, "maybe" (I don't know since I did not read them) your previous two posts were insightful, BUT I doubt that anyone would even notice that, SINCE they probably have just simply decided to give it a "pass" after realizing the "LENGTH" of them.

Suggestion: Sum it up.

People's eyes get blurry when skimming through ultra-lengthy posts that aren't even worth the effort -- ie, this topic of discussion isn't that interesting/controversial, such as the religious debates. :)

Eviscerator
06-19-2006, 08:41 PM
Orange, "maybe" (I don't know since I did not read them) your previous two posts were insightful, BUT I doubt that anyone would even notice that, SINCE they probably have just simply decided to give it a "pass" after realizing the "LENGTH" of them.

Suggestion: Sum it up.

People's eyes get blurry when skimming through ultra-lengthy posts that aren't even worth the effort -- ie, this topic of discussion isn't that interesting/controversial, such as the religious debates. :)

:roll:

Sad commentary

retroceso
06-19-2006, 08:53 PM
When I watch those old matches as today between Borg and Gerulaitis I laugh. This is old, very slow tennis ( it is why it is full of great points). I don't want to say those players are not great, no.

But those old champions can teach Federer nothing including Roche. In order to win FO he must hire somebody from fresh list ( who reached the final at FO or won it). Imagine, even Kafelnikov - recent FO champion ( recent means of last 10 years) told there is nothing he can advise to Federer, only be patient, because atacking tennis doesn't win on clay ( Sampras, Becker, McEnroe and etc...).

Who are possible contenders ? I seriosly think about: Kuerten, Lendl, Wilander.


lol Sampras, that guy is great

OrangeOne
06-19-2006, 08:54 PM
Orange, "maybe" (I don't know since I did not read them) your previous two posts were insightful, BUT I doubt that anyone would even notice that, SINCE they probably have just simply decided to give it a "pass" after realizing the "LENGTH" of them.

Suggestion: Sum it up.

People's eyes get blurry when skimming through ultra-lengthy posts that aren't even worth the effort -- ie, this topic of discussion isn't that interesting/controversial, such as the religious debates. :)

Hmm - but this conversation is about tennis & coaching, which at least makes it about tennis. IMHO, i'd rather read a long post about tennis on a tennis forum than any post about religion, but that's just me.

I stated my argument, clearly, in post #17. You found that post insightful, I thank you for saying that. It wasn't a short post, but the cheat sheet version was that "I clearly do not think any coach, even an elite one, needs to be a past player, nor a past multiple champion on the surface that they're coaching a player to play on. A coach needs to be good at coaching, and the skills required for a good coach are almost completely separate to those required to have been a good player in the recent past".

In post #17, I backed that opinion up with 5 or 6 reasons, and that's why the post was long. And here in lies my other point - I far prefer, personally, to read opinions backed up with explanation. Many posts on many forums state an opinion, and give no reasons, which is often, on this forum, just fan-talk. Give me reasons for your opinion, and i'm happy to have a discussion.

If someone can't be bothered reading a discussion i'm having with someone else, I don't necessarily want to hear their input! The number of times I see someone chiming in at the end of a thread saying or asking something that was discussed on the previous page....

(Oh - and for the record - i've never been afraid to use two words when one would do, so despite the above - I do take some of your point ;)

Federer The G.O.A.T.!
06-19-2006, 09:11 PM
:roll:

Sad commentarySad commentary. :rolleyes:

Federer The G.O.A.T.!
06-19-2006, 09:14 PM
Hmm - but this conversation is about tennis & coaching, which at least makes it about tennis. IMHO, i'd rather read a long post about tennis on a tennis forum than any post about religion, but that's just me.

I stated my argument, clearly, in post #17. You found that post insightful, I thank you for saying that. It wasn't a short post, but the cheat sheet version was that "I clearly do not think any coach, even an elite one, needs to be a past player, nor a past multiple champion on the surface that they're coaching a player to play on. A coach needs to be good at coaching, and the skills required for a good coach are almost completely separate to those required to have been a good player in the recent past".

In post #17, I backed that opinion up with 5 or 6 reasons, and that's why the post was long. And here in lies my other point - I far prefer, personally, to read opinions backed up with explanation. Many posts on many forums state an opinion, and give no reasons, which is often, on this forum, just fan-talk. Give me reasons for your opinion, and i'm happy to have a discussion.

If someone can't be bothered reading a discussion i'm having with someone else, I don't necessarily want to hear their input! The number of times I see someone chiming in at the end of a thread saying or asking something that was discussed on the previous page....

(Oh - and for the record - i've never been afraid to use two words when one would do, so despite the above - I do take some of your point ;)Haha, no need to be so descriptive. It turned out to be another pretty lengthy post. I just wanted to see how you would reply. Just some bread I threw into the lake, that's all. I guess the minnows surfaced, going after the crumbs and you ate them instead of my bread. :D

OrangeOne
06-19-2006, 09:23 PM
Haha, no need to be so descriptive. It turned out to be another pretty lengthy post. I just wanted to see how you would reply.

Great. Excellent. Fanstastic. I'll know to never bother replying to another post of yours.

Good luck with a life lacking discourse, description and detail (and thus much of the richness that is out there), I hope you find the bullet points of wisdom you're looking for!

slice bh compliment
06-19-2006, 09:30 PM
Okay, back to the point of the thread. Whom must Federer hire as coach?
Aykhan Mammadov already! Geez!
Well, keep Rochey ('cause he's greatness and good for Rogi's overall game), keep Pavel around ('cause he's smart and good for Fedi's body) but occasionally swing through Baku as a pre-emptive strike against 'the trembles'.

Aykhan Mammadov
06-20-2006, 11:13 AM
slice bh compliment, I know u call yrself slice bh compliment just because of Fed's bh slice shot u always admired with beginning from 2003.

vkartikv
06-20-2006, 11:16 AM
slice bh compliment, I know u call yrself slice bh compliment just because of Fed's bh slice shot u always admired with beginning from 2003.

Will you coach me please?

Federer The G.O.A.T.!
06-20-2006, 12:26 PM
Great. Excellent. Fanstastic. I'll know to never bother replying to another post of yours.

Good luck with a life lacking discourse, description and detail (and thus much of the richness that is out there), I hope you find the bullet points of wisdom you're looking for!LMAO, you sure love those minnows, don't you. :mrgreen: I'll have to try out the shinners next time, or maybe even the illegal goldfish. :)

Hal
06-20-2006, 12:57 PM
It is not possible to teach mathematics if u don't know it yourself.

Ah...but even a brilliant Mathematician may not be a good math teacher (John Nash comes to mind). What you need is a teacher/coach that's capable of invoking the talent of the student/player.