Best coach of post prime Fed

[DerekNoleFam1]

Coaches are overrated in my opinion. Federer can own all of his coaches by playing with his left hand behind the back. I also don't think Nadal's 2017 wins have something to do with Moya.

Both coaches had a significant impact on bringing back Fedal in 2017, I doubt either has the year they had without them.
A good coach was not necessarily the best player, that is the same in all sports.

 

[NoleFam]

The answer is Edberg. He took Federer's game to where it is now and Ljubicic just gets the bragging rights. With Edberg, Federer became an even better volleyer, his backhand began to improve and he started to redline in matches like he did many years prior (ie. 2015 Wimbledon SF). 2015 was the first time in 6 years that Federer got to two GS finals within one year and he was the last player standing from the field when Djokovic dominated. To me, Edberg laid the foundation that enabled Federer to win 2 Slams this year.

 

[BHServe]

Coaches are overrated in my opinion. Federer can own all of his coaches by playing with his left hand behind the back. I also don't think Nadal's 2017 wins have something to do with Moya.

Just LOL

 

[SpecialGunpowder]

I'm a teacher, and at one time I was a student. No one knows who the best teacher is except the student. You don't base teaching - or coaching - only by what happens under the teacher/coach. It can take many years for seeds planted to fully take root.

If only more people understood this...

 

[Steve0904]

That's really tough. Edberg really did work wonders, though he didn't quite get the same results as Ljubicic. I feel like under Ljubicic he's simply doing what he's done before, but significantly better, while under Edberg he had an entirely different game.

I think you have to give it to Ljubicic, but Edberg deserved better results than Federer managed to achieve.

Well said. I'd also like to add that IMO, Annacone is nowhere near as bad as he's made out to be by some Federer fans. He coached Federer at a bad time, in that typical age related decline period for a tennis player. I don't think Edberg or Ljubicic could've done much, if any better. Federer was very stubborn back then. He's more perceptive to changes and coaching the last few years.

 

[Steve0904]

Just LOL

The post you quoted is obviously exaggerating things, but I actually agree that coaches are overrated in general. Just look at Federer's prime for proof of that. No serious coach for most of it.

 

[cc0509]

That's silly. Just because he was stopped by a peak djokovic in 15 (when he was beating everyone else handily at wimbledon and USO) doesn't mean Edberg was useless. (throw in the same for 14 Wimbledon)

There were considerable useful changes in his game under Edberg.

Meh. Not enough to get the job done and not enough to stop Federer from some of his patterns of play and his stubbornness. Whereas somehow Lube has gotten Federer to change some of those stubborn patterns and achieve incredible results. My vote goes to Lube all the way.

 

[RF-18]

The answer is Edberg. He took Federer's game to where it is now and Ljubicic just gets the bragging rights. With Edberg, Federer became an even better volleyer, his backhand began to improve and he started to redline in matches like he did many years prior (ie. 2015 Wimbledon SF). 2015 was the first time in 6 years that Federer got to two GS finals within one year and he was the last player standing from the field when Djokovic dominated. To me, Edberg laid the foundation that enabled Federer to win 2 Slams this year.

Exactly what I was about to write. Edberg created the ''new'' Fed. Ljubcic has just continued his work, but he has done a good job at that though.

Without Edberg question would be where fed would be at right now.

 

[Winners or Errors]

Edberg and Ljubcic deserve the credit, but I don't know which had a greater impact. Fed is still applying things he picked up while playing with Edberg and has added some new wrinkles since bringing Ljubcic on board. It's hard to tell without having Federer say something himself. That said, it's unlikely we'll ever hear about it, because Fed has too much class to say bad things about other coaches, like Annacone.

 

[frinton]

One guy never mentioned was Pierre Paganini! I think he’s the mastermind with most impact on Federer’s career altogether. He turned him into a super fit player, No. 1 material and ensured he stayed competitive that long.
Severin Lüthi is underestimated! He brings in the long term stability in Federer’s Tennis, comparable to Paganini for Fitness, but not as long as Paganini. The ‘big name’ coaches were supposed and mostly did bring in new ideas, new elements and provide an element of change to the consistency provided by Lüthi & Paganini.
I think the amazing improvement under Edberg was not only the quality of the volley, but tactics, when to approach the net, with which shot and where to be positioned at the net for the first and 2nd volley. Before Edberg, Federer would not attack as cleverly and stand at the wrong place more often. Additional improvements were for sure encouraged by the new racket as well (backhand, SABR as a surprise element).
Lub had the good luck of being part of the new build of Federer after the injury in 16. Confidence improved a lot on the backhand, especially in matches over Nadal. Lub as tall a player as he was had less trouble with Rafa’s spin and could hit topspin backhands against him. He managed to plant the believe in Roger, that he could also do that taking balls earlier.
Annacone... I do not see anything he brought to Roger’s game. I thought Roger played the same as before Annacone, was simply not as good anymore as in his prime and less successful and it was considered normal and was as expected. If anything under Annacone Federer took more risk, tried to play aggressively but not with an according game plan. I consider the Annacone years as lost years.
As for Tony Roach I sometimes wondered if he was not just there for inspiration and because Roger had been without a coach (other than Lüthi) for too long already (but not unsuccessfully).


...fail better!

 

[vex]

Controversial opinion perhaps but I'm in the Edberg camp. I think he did the most to build the foundation for the longevity and current success of post-peak Fed.

 

[abmk]

Meh. Not enough to get the job done and not enough to stop Federer from some of his patterns of play and his stubbornness. Whereas somehow Lube has gotten Federer to change some of those stubborn patterns and achieve incredible results. My vote goes to Lube all the way.

Federer was returning aggressively (quite a bit of chip and charge) under Edberg -- including SABR. His BH had enough pace, depth and consistency (the BH under Ljubicic was a finished product of that)

Just because he couldn't get the job done vs peak djokovic doesn't mean he didn't make enough changes.

Federer had a multiple month break and time to practise to get his ground game fully adjusted with the new racquet (both FH and BH) and shore up his stamina as well. He didn't have that under Edberg.

Federer was pretty stubborn vs Delpo in Shanghai recently ballbashing with him instead of slicing and dicing to cut him up. He was playing at a pretty high level, so he won.Some of the choices he made vs Delpo at USO were head-scratching to say the least.

He's got the tactics perfect vs Nadal this year, though, no question.

I can see why you would choose Ljubicic over Edberg and I am not against that, but I am against the fact you said Edberg's coaching was near useless. Nowhere near true.

 

[wangs78]

I really don’t think Annacone contributed much, other than an increase in net approaches per game, which you really don’t need a coach to do. Edberg made Fed comfortable with playing multiple shots at net, in other words inhabit the service line with confidence to not get passed. Ljube rebuilt the backhand (which perhaps Edberg also had a hand in). To be fair to Annacone, as the least accomplished player of the three coaches, you can’t blame him for having a smaller, more passive impact on Fed versus the other two.

 

[BHServe]

The post you quoted is obviously exaggerating things, but I actually agree that coaches are overrated in general. Just look at Federer's prime for proof of that. No serious coach for most of it.

You are correct, my fault I did not bother to open my view. What I was laughing at was that it is always hilarious when people think that in order to be a great coach you should have been a great tour player in your career. It just isn’t like that.

 

[vex]

Federer was returning aggressively (quite a bit of chip and charge) under Edberg -- including SABR. His BH had enough pace, depth and consistency (the BH under Ljubicic was a finished product of that)

Just because he couldn't get the job done vs peak djokovic doesn't mean he didn't make enough changes.

Federer had a multiple month break and time to practise to get his ground game fully adjusted with the new racquet (both FH and BH) and shore up his stamina as well. He didn't have that under Edberg.

Federer was pretty stubborn vs Delpo in Shanghai recently ballbashing with him instead of slicing and dicing to cut him up. He was playing at a pretty high level, so he won.Some of the choices he made vs Delpo at USO were head-scratching to say the least.

He's got the tactics perfect vs Nadal this year, though, no question.

I can see why you would choose Ljubicic over Edberg and I am not against that, but I am against the fact you said Edberg's coaching was near useless. Nowhere near true.

^^^ this

 

[cc0509]

Federer was returning aggressively (quite a bit of chip and charge) under Edberg -- including SABR. His BH had enough pace, depth and consistency (the BH under Ljubicic was a finished product of that)

Just because he couldn't get the job done vs peak djokovic doesn't mean he didn't make enough changes.

Federer had a multiple month break and time to practise to get his ground game fully adjusted with the new racquet (both FH and BH) and shore up his stamina as well. He didn't have that under Edberg.

Federer was pretty stubborn vs Delpo in Shanghai recently ballbashing with him instead of slicing and dicing to cut him up. He was playing at a pretty high level, so he won.Some of the choices he made vs Delpo at USO were head-scratching to say the least.

He's got the tactics perfect vs Nadal this year, though, no question.

I can see why you would choose Ljubicic over Edberg and I am not against that, but I am against the fact you said Edberg's coaching was near useless. Nowhere near true.

I can understand your point of view but I can't say I agree with it. For me, Edberg focused on the wrong things and didn't yield the results whereas Ljubicic zeroed in on some key things and it has made a huge difference. In the end, only results matter.

 

[vex]

I can understand your point of view but I can't say I agree with it. For me, Edberg focused on the wrong things and didn't yield the results whereas Ljubicic zeroed in on some key things and it has made a huge difference. In the end, only results matter.

The Edberg era results would have been pretty F'ing tough tho. Its not like he was getting Cilic and Anderson finals with Edberg. At the same time, 5 win streak against his past demon is pretty hot.

 

[cc0509]

The Edberg era results would have been pretty F'ing tough tho. Its not like he was getting Cilic and Anderson finals with Edberg. At the same time, 5 win streak against his past demon is pretty hot.

That's all I care about, i.e. the results.

 

[Jaitock1991]

They all played a big part, and all though I feel tempted to say Ljubicic due to the amount of success they've had together in such a short period of time, I feel like Edberg was the guy that in many ways made the foundation of the game he plays today, especially his serve and in general more aggressive mindset than ever before.

 

[Steve0904]

You are correct, my fault I did not bother to open my view. What I was laughing at was that it is always hilarious when people think that in order to be a great coach you should have been a great tour player in your career. It just isn’t like that.

That's true. It isn't. In fact it is usually the opposite I've found. The lesser players often turn into the better coaches, and vice versa. It's like teaching a little bit. Teachers can be brilliant, but not be able to transfer that brilliance onto a student so their actual teaching ability isn't that great. Whereas a teacher who knew what it was like to struggle with a subject or two could communicate and make the student understand better in my experience.

 

[abmk]

I can understand your point of view but I can't say I agree with it. For me, Edberg focused on the wrong things and didn't yield the results whereas Ljubicic zeroed in on some key things and it has made a huge difference. In the end, only results matter.

edberg zeroed in on the BH, return and net play which were right things to do

only the FH was the main thing that wasn't clicking , federer just didn't feel comfortable hitting out with the new racquet from his FH.
the multiple months break in the 2nd half of 2016 seemed to have given him time and confidence to do so.

Federer was up against a peaking Djokovic under Edberg, no one at that level in 17 under Ljubicic. He was beating everyone else under Edberg anyways.
If federer was up against similar top level competition, then yeah, results matter would be very much applicable. But its not the same.

"in the end, only results matter" mantra is what lead Roddick to fire Gilbert at the end of 2004 and his career took a turn for the worse (in major part because he couldn't overcome federer that year). He was progressing in the right direction under Gilbert, but was hasty.

 

[The_18th_Slam]

Looks like cc0509 is at it again with her silly and braindead "anal-isis".

 

[TheMaestro1990]

Easy choice: Ljubicic.

 

[Sudacafan]

Lyubeecheech, of course.

 

[Chanwan]

edberg zeroed in on the BH, return and net play which were right things to do

only the FH was the main thing that wasn't clicking , federer just didn't feel comfortable hitting out with the new racquet from his FH.
the multiple months break in the 2nd half of 2016 seemed to have given him time and confidence to do so.

Federer was up against a peaking Djokovic under Edberg, no one at that level in 17 under Ljubicic. He was beating everyone else under Edberg anyways.
If federer was up against similar top level competition, then yeah, results matter would be very much applicable. But its not the same.

"in the end, only results matter" mantra is what lead Roddick to fire Gilbert at the end of 2004 and his career took a turn for the worse (in major part because he couldn't overcome federer that year). He was progressing in the right direction under Gilbert, but was hasty.

I might remember it wrong, but did Edberg really do that much with Fed's backhand? I think the difference between the "neo backhand" and the Edberg backhand is vast. The 6 month break is a massive contributing factor to that of course, but still.
Iirc, the big difference between Fed and Novak (aside from Fed's lack of mental belief, when it mattered) in those 14-16 matches were that Novak would go to the backhand and eventually get an attackable ball. The backhand at 1.05 being a prime example:

Fed's not so great forehand played it's part as well, of course, but Novak did earn a lot of victories by focusing on the backhand before attacking the forehand-side (where Fed's movement ain't what it was)

 

[King No1e]

I'm inclined to say Stefan Edberg

Ljubicic is the obvious answer on results, but circumstances played a key hand in that

Specifically, Federer having 6 months off to internalize the changes to his game that have proved so effective

I heard Federer credit Edberg as well as Ivan for the new backhand... said it's something that's been under work for awhile... I interpreted this as the idea came under Edberg but there wasn't time to implement it during the full scedhule he had (understandably)

Was also struck by changes under Edberg... more net rushing, improved volleying, SABR etc.

It kept an aging great who was wont to getting overpowered from the baseline and whose return was naturally receding within reasonable distance of a GOAT-ing top dog... that's a minor miracle itself

(Mind you, Pepe Imaz might have done more than Annacone, Edberg, Ljubicic, Toni Nadal and Carlos Moya put together in shaping things...

What did Pepe Imaz do to you guys? He just tried to help Novak get some peace.

 

[nikdom]

I don’t get why a majority think Annacone did nothing!! In fact, he was Roger’s coach during the time when Roger seriously decided to give a larger racquet a try. Wilson was making prototypes and flying them to Basel and Roger tested them long before he debuted the RF97 in its present form sometime in 2014.

Annacone no doubt impressed upon Roger the regrets Pete had not shifting to a larger head in hindsight.

I would say Stefan did a major part of the retooling once the new racquet was adopted. Annacone convinced him of the racquet change and an aggressive style as the way forward if Roger had any chance of surviving in the Djokovic/Murray era and Lbujicic has been an excellent match tactician in that mindset laid down by Paul and Stefan.

 

[abmk]

I might remember it wrong, but did Edberg really do that much with Fed's backhand? I think the difference between the "neo backhand" and the Edberg backhand is vast. The 6 month break is a massive contributing factor to that of course, but still.
Iirc, the big difference between Fed and Novak (aside from Fed's lack of mental belief, when it mattered) in those 14-16 matches were that Novak would go to the backhand and eventually get an attackable ball. The backhand at 1.05 being a prime example:

Fed's not so great forehand played it's part as well, of course, but Novak did earn a lot of victories by focusing on the backhand before attacking the forehand-side (where Fed's movement ain't what it was)

not sure what you'd expect any version of Federer to do with that Nole FH to his BH.
Given Nole's shot, he actually handled it fine.

Federer's BH was actually pretty consistent and had good depth in that USO final.

and yes, FEderer's BH improved considerably under Edberg.
The work under Ljubicic was a continuation.

 

[King No1e]

Ironic that Federer got the secret to beating Nadal from a guy that he himself beat some 15 times

 

[Chanwan]

not sure what you'd expect any version of Federer to do with that Nole FH to his BH.
Given Nole's shot, he actually handled it fine.

Federer's BH was actually pretty consistent and had good depth in that USO final.

and yes, FEderer's BH improved considerably under Edberg.
The work under Ljubicic was a continuation.

- it's a Novak backhand to the Fed backhand at 1.05. Which Fed returns with a nothing on it high bouncing backhand that Novak then tees off on.
Granted, Novak's backhand was deep, but still. Also, this is just one example of Fed coughing up balls for Novak to attack. I can find plenty more if you need me to.

 

[abmk]

- it's a Novak backhand to the Fed backhand at 1.05. Which Fed returns with a nothing on it high bouncing backhand that Novak then tees off on.
Granted, Novak's backhand was deep, but still. Also, this is just one example of Fed coughing up balls for Novak to attack. I can find plenty more if you need me to.

my bad. I was thinking of the FH next shot, it was the deep BH that forced federer on the backfoot.

Coughing up balls for the opponent to attack off a deep ball happens even now :

see from 0:22

see the point starting from 4:04, the part of the point at 7:22,

It happens to almost everyone. and djokovic is the best at making players cough up short balls with his depth.

Of course, federer had got better at countering it in 17 compared to 15

 

[Chanwan]

my bad. I was thinking of the FH next shot, it was the deep BH that forced federer on the backfoot.

Coughing up balls for the opponent to attack off a deep ball happens even now :

see from 0:22

see the point starting from 4:04, the part of the point at 7:22,

It happens to almost everyone. and djokovic is the best at making players cough up short balls with his depth.

Of course, federer had got better at countering it in 17 compared to 15

Well, at least we agree on the latter. I for one
a) found the backhand more attackable in 2015
b) found he was less able to hit winners with it in 2015

There'll always be short balls, that can't be helped. And you're right, Djoko's depth is excellent at producing just that. My general sense is just that his current backhand would deal somewhere between a lot and significantly better than I felt his 2015 dealt with the Djokovic onslaught.

 

[abmk]

Well, at least we agree on the latter. I for one
a) found the backhand more attackable in 2015
b) found he was less able to hit winners with it in 2015

true on both counts, but the BH was clearly more consistent and had more depth than it did for most part from 2008-12.

There'll always be short balls, that can't be helped. And you're right, Djoko's depth is excellent at producing just that. My general sense is just that his current backhand would deal somewhere between a lot and significantly better than I felt his 2015 dealt with the Djokovic onslaught.

well, for sure, he'll do clearly better, not sure how much.
I'm more interested in how he'll punish DJokovic with his FH again (something almost missing after 2012, save the rare occasion like Shanghai 14)

 

[Chanwan]

true on both counts, but the BH was clearly more consistent and had more depth than it did for most part from 2008-12.



well, for sure, he'll do clearly better, not sure how much.
I'm more interested in how he'll punish DJokovic with his FH again (something almost missing after 2012, save the rare occasion like Shanghai 14)

You're probably right on the first part - you're memory is better than mine in this regard.
I'm looking forward to the forehand too. Basically, his ground game should stake better up vs. Djoko now - as should his RoS with the improved backhand return.
All in all, I'm basically just hoping he can keep it up for another year or 2 at this level. Would be amazing to see him be the best player again next year - even if that doesn't entail the no. 1 ranking.

 

[CentreCourt]

I think Edberg was the perfect guy precursor to Ljubicic. Edberg tightened up his S&V and Ljubicic has improved his backhand immeasurably and got his timing of it all perfect. All three were necessary in the evolution of the Fed we now see, but Ljubicic has undoubtedly been the one to bring it all together.

 

[Waspsting]

What did Pepe Imaz do to you guys? He just tried to help Novak get some peace.

Haha - my first comment was tongue in cheek - don't take it too seriously

I wrote the below on May 13, 2017, in response to a thread heavily critical of Imaz - you can find the whole thread here - https://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/index.php?threads/how-much-longer-until-novak-fires-pepe.589541/

We don't know what Djokovic is/was going through in his life... none of us do

Its possible life as a world beater was hell for him (internally and mentally). Its not uncommon for high achievers in any field to have crappy life satisfaction due to having the obsessed nature that comes with the drive to succeed at that level.

My point regarding Djokovic is... Pepe's influence may be a 'cancer' for his game, but there's no way we can know what its done for his life overall (maybe he's turned a 'cancerous' life into one where Djoko enjoys life instead)

As tennis fans, Djokovic's decline is unfortunate to us

From Djokovic's perspective (which should matter a lot more to Djokovic than ours), maybe Pepe''s the best thing that's ever happened to him?

BTW, this is the last sincere post I'll make on Djokovic and Pepe and that whole circus thing because frankly, from my perspective, the best value of this situation is the potential for humour in it

That quoted, this is a forum for discussing tennis - not spirituality, not mental health

I'd rather not shoot in the dark about what Imaz's intentions are/were or the extent to which he's succeeded/failed in them with Novak Djokovic

As far as his influence on the tennis goes ... I can't help but suspect it hasn't been a net positive

And I stand by my point, tongue-in-cheek though it was... Easy to say Ljubicic > Edberg because of Slam titles and results, but look at the competition

Edberg's Federer I believe would probably have won Wimb 14, 15, US 15 and Aus 16 with the "Pepe-ified" Djokovic we saw in Ljubicic Federer's period in those draws (I doubt Djokovic would even make it to Federer in those tournaments)

If he had, would people still name Ljubicic > Edberg?

 

[abmk]

You're probably right on the first part - you're memory is better than mine in this regard.
I'm looking forward to the forehand too. Basically, his ground game should stake better up vs. Djoko now - as should his RoS with the improved backhand return.
All in all, I'm basically just hoping he can keep it up for another year or 2 at this level. Would be amazing to see him be the best player again next year - even if that doesn't entail the no. 1 ranking.

that'd be real amazing.