Well he certainly did wonders for Sloane.
It could have been worse, I guess. He could have hired Martin.
It could have been worse, I guess. He could have hired Martin.
Yes and yes.Not convinced that Paul is a fantastic coach/communicator, but we'll see what he can do. I think everyone wants to see Grigor do even better next year.
I think Magnus Norman could do him a world of good to sort out his mental issues, the way he did with Söderling and Wawrinka. Of course, there is the slight issue of him not being available right now, but definitely a move to consider in the future, imho.Bad move. Annacone wasted Federer's prime years and now he'll destroy career of baby Fed.
Better thing is at least he went for proper coach rather than just a physical trainer.
Ideal coach for Dimitrov is skills based aggressive former retired player like Haas (he has already shown interest), McEnroe, Sampras, Becker, Edberg and many other S&V players from 90's or previous era could help him evolving his all court talent.
For me early he get rid of Annacone would be better for his career.I think Magnus Norman could do him a world of good to sort out his mental issues, the way he did with Söderling and Wawrinka. Of course, there is the slight issue of him not being available right now, but definitely a move to consider in the future, imho.
I think you're probably considering a different Annacone. Not the one that coached Pete Sampras and Federer.For me early he get rid of Annacone would be better for his career.
Norman is still better Option than Annacone. IMV Norman can help him building his weak ground game especially forehand like he did with Sod, Wawr.
So you mean Annacone is great coach?Became world number 1 and won Wimbledon. Unclear whether or not he carried a bad back already. Hard to impress you.
HOLW coy this is Huge. paul annacone will make sure Grigor never misses a flight ever again or hotel room is always booked.........................YESPaul Annacone. Confirmed today by Maximagq Inquirer. Reporting live from the University of California at Los Angeles.
Three things become clear from your posts in this thread. You know next to nothing about Annacone's career as a coach and you believe a healthy Federer being better than an injured Federer is due to Edberg being a better coach than Annacone. Last but not least, you forgot this thread is about Dimitrov.So you mean Annacone is great coach?
Federer was capable of winning more than one slam physically during 2010-12 period. With Annacone Federer was like lottery. He used to play brilliantly but once in 6 months. With Edberg even with advanced age Federer has more consistent results, more wins over top 10. Federer never put focused efforts working on every aspect of his game like he did with Edberg.
Current Federer physically declined but his serve, backhand, volleys are much better and consistent than 2010-12 period
Federer wasn't injured in 2010-12 period. Back injury started troubling him at Wimbledon 12? Before that he was healthier and physically stronger than currently he's.Three things become clear from your posts in this thread. You know next to nothing about Annacone's career as a coach and you believe a healthy Federer being better than an injured Federer is due to Edberg being a better coach than Annacone. Last but not least, you forgot this thread is about Dimitrov.
Yes, now late twenties is when players peak, just as squash by the way. Grigor Dimitrov has the best chances of the young players to win slams.Dimitrov is the next Federer. Today age 26 is the new 18. So, Dimitrov's peak will be age 29-32 and he will start dominating then and winning.
Sorry, I hate to say it, but I agree with DNalby12. Annacone for me is an overrated coach. He latched onto players who were multiple slam winners already. I did not see a lot of improvement with Roger's game under Annacone and I think Edberg is a much better coach for Roger who should have come on board the Roger train a few years ago. JMO.Three things become clear from your posts in this thread. You know next to nothing about Annacone's career as a coach and you believe a healthy Federer being better than an injured Federer is due to Edberg being a better coach than Annacone. Last but not least, you forgot this thread is about Dimitrov.
I think Sampras' 2000 Wimbledon form was decent enough. His serve and groundgame took a backseat compared to '99 but he was still rather vicious; especially when he attacked a whole lot more.You know having read all of the posts here I see where some of you guys are coming from. Initially I said it's good and that is still the case. But I also share some of the views of his previous stints.
For instance, I was never satisfied with how Sampras' game went from the late 1990s onwards. I much preferred the Sampras under Tim Gullickson and before that Joe Brandi. Sampras said in his book he resisted Annacone in wanting him to play attacking tennis non stop but in the end he did. He played too quick, didn't demonstrate enough patience too often especially 2000 onwards. One of the plays I disliked the most was jettisoning the tried and trusted running round the backhand to fit big forehands on return of serve in the ad court, which he was extremely good at, for the chip and charge instead, which he was no so good at. I also didn't like the serve volley on both serves on hardcourts because it was totally uneccessary and gave opponents too many targets. The Sampras up to around 1999 was still very much the Gullickson one, and he had more overall success that way. Success really dried up during the attack attack attack 2000 - 2002 period, and his confidence suffered.
Now in Federer's case, I do remember 2012 Wimbledon final was his best tennis for a number of years. One might argue Murray allowed Federer to play that way once he got rid of the nerves. Again, Federer was chip charging the Murray 2nd serve (which does make sense as Murray's 2nd delivery is seriously lacking), and Annacone did help Federer get back to number 1 so must be given credit. But Federer is not quite as attack minded as Sampras and so there might have been confusion in his mind on how best to deal with Annacone's tactical plans.
So really, Annacone's job has to be to strike the right balance, in what he learned from coaching Sampras and Federer. Which is to strike the balance between attacking and defending. Sampras had that good balance for many years and then jettisoned it, Federer enjoys defending probably a little bit more too. Defending is fun as long you can switch defence to attack from time to time.
I think Dimitrov has the capability but one thing he doesn't have for sure, is the Federer and Sampras ability to hit winners at will. Sampras could hit clean winners well behind the baseline off both wings and Federer is one of the very best around the basleine itself not giving ground. So Dimitrov really has to play more up the court like Agassi but be prepared to hit into the corners and attack the net which I think he is good at. And add some more explosiveness to his shots so he can start hitting winners which would make his opponents' more worried when they play him.
This is probably Paul Annacone's last chance with a top player, if he doesn't get Dimitrov to top 5 and into a slam final, his stock will definitely go down and his methods may be deemed outdated. We'll see.
As torpantennis says, maybe Dimitrov is consulting with Annacone for a few weeks while Rasheed is in Australia? Maybe Dimitrov is testing Annacone out? Could be a lot of different things.Well if he is going over tactics with Grigor on what serving strategies he should execute, that must mean something.
You are being no worse than the guy who called Nishikori a Chinese, by repeatedly referring Grigor as a Soviet.If Paul does Coach Grigor, it will be great for Soviet tennis.