From r.s.t., translated from French and posted by dikdietrick (thanks). Not sparing the words, Mats, pretty intransigent. ---------------- Here's a snippet from French Tennis Magazine: TM: Roger Federer has no full-time coach. The current players, do you think they need a coach from January to December? MW: It all depends on the coach they have. Roger Federer doesn't need Tony Roche for 30 weeks. It's too much for both. 10 weeks, their choice, that's the rightest one. Sometimes, it's surprising to see Nadal with coaches whose tennistic past is much more than limited whereas he should be pictured more with former champions such as Emilio Sanchez who could teach him important stuff. Those are players who prefer working on small details, whereas I think you should be more definitive and say: here's what you do wrong, here's how you can improve. You also get the feeling that their coach, who haven't been high-ranked players, do learn at the same time. For example, I'm worried about somebody like Ferrero who, from the level he's reached so far, should be able to volley much better than he actually does. Same for a champion like Hewitt, who has to improve on some points. I'm admiring Roddick's decision to separate from Brad Gilbert. Because Gilbert wasn't the one who could have bettered Roddick's backhand or his game on clay. He was absolutely not interested in all this. I'm myself not much talking technics in my training way. It's not much what happens on my side of the court that matters for me, but more what occurs on the other side of the net. TM: Speaking of Roger Federer, how do you perceive his domination? MW: It's so great to see him play that you hardly feel like seeing somebody else play. I have admiration for Roddick and Hewitt's will, but Federer is another game topic. The question one might wonder to ask, if one feels like asking one of course, would be "will he be physically strong enough to win matches the day his mind would have remained in his hotel room"? Me for example, it was impossible because I had to give my best 100% from the first up to the last point. And from the moment my desire has started decreasing, after winning 3 out of the 4 GSs in 1988, it was over, it was the end of my career. TM: Can he win RG? MW: Of course, he can! He can do whatever suits him on clay and he's already proved it. If I was in Roger Federer's shoes, and given what he has already gone through, I would focus mostly on RG. Furthermore, if I were him, I would be wishing to win the 4 GSs each year. For me, he has the means to equal the great results of somebody like Rod Laver. But if he wants to achieve it, he has to ask himself the essential question right now : how can I put all the chances on my side to win RG? Pete Sampras for example, has never granted himself the means to achieve it. And this didn't mean for him to radically change his game on clay. But in order to be faithfull, he should have trained sufficiently so that the game which allowed him to win the USO could also allow him to be the best in Paris. Many people will certainly disagree with what I'm about to say but for me, RG is the easiest GS you can win. Because ALL lies in the player's hands. ALL depends on him. You'll never get a chance to witness 4 aces in a row like in Wimbledon. It's only you who are building your victory from the beginning till the end of the match. Why should Federer fail here? Last year, against Kuerten, he had absolutely taken no risks. It was as if his mind was already wandering in Wimbledon. And we should therefore stop pretending that Wimbledon is the most important GS of the year. That's crap. It's the least important one simply because it's played on a surface on which you never play anymore. TM:If you had to change one thing in tennis today... MW: Precisely Wimbledon. Let's make it be what it was used to be. The surface has been slowed too much and today, apart from Tim Henman and Taylor Dent, who plays serve and volley? Nobody! To be lively, the game needs the contrasts of different styles.