Does Federer actually need a coach? I'm not so sure....

G

Gabs011

Guest
There has been much talk about this topic lately. If another thread similar to this one has already been made then I apologise for that.

I was really happy when Fed got rid of Roche as by the end it really seemed that Roche was more of a burden than anything else.

The reason I think this is an interesting question is because Fed is not another ordinary ATP player. With most players you really feel like they rely heavily on their coach - if not for their expertise then solely for their support & presence.

But with Fed who is at such a high level both technically and also mentally what can a coach really offer him? Would the coach eventually not prove to be a burden just like Roche? In his early years, despite his greatness, Fed was still maturing and definitely needed someone there with him. But now I feel he has reached a stage where his team of Mirka and himself really don't need anybody else.

With any coach - when they start coaching a new player - I think there is the pressure to suggest changes in order to justify their worth. However, I think this is the danger with the Fed situation that a coach may want to change what is already perfect and doesnt need changing.

But for those of you who think he needs a coach - then who would be a good fit (please explain why that coach would be good as I have little knowledge about coaches).

Many thanks
 

Rickson

G.O.A.T.
Roger doesn't need a coach and he never needed Tony. Roger was just being generous to Tony because he needed some money and he decided the coach label would be a good way to give something to his friend without hurting his feelings. Mirka, with her huge appetite, decided that money would be better spent on her food so Tony had to go. Oh well, big girlfriends lead to coachless players.
 
when roger stops winning at least 3 slams a year, maybe he'll need a coach. there aren't any gaping holes in his game so what good would a coach do? he doesn't really have mental problems either. i think he already has a winning team. mirka being there probably keeps him at ease enough that he doesn't need someone to rely on like a lot of the immature players. what would a coach do for him that he isn't already achieving?

he probably learned all he needed to from roche.

seriously though why is she so fat?
 

Topaz

Legend
He has a coach...
Her name is Mirka!!!

And you can keep making as many jokes and rude comments about her weight as you like...the truth is that Mirka is an important factor in Fed's success. He has said so many times himself, and while coaches may come and go, Mirka is a constant.
 

angharad

Semi-Pro
I think Federer needs someone who can give him an alternate perspective. It seems that he honestly just doesn't know what he's doing wrong when he loses any more - he seems to be saying "I thought I was playing well." a lot. I think any coach out there knows that, with Federer, you aren't going to be changing his shots or general strategy. But he needs someone to say "This is what you're doing wrong." I don't think Roche was all that happy with that situation at the end, and so they fell out the way they did.

Topaz said:
the truth is that Mirka is an important factor in Fed's success.

Exactly. He's said that, without Mirka, he would not have been able to deal with being on tour all year. I'm willing to put it to the extreme that he wouldn't be playing at all right now if not for her.
 

Cervantes

New User
Big girls...

Roger doesn't need a coach and he never needed Tony. Roger was just being generous to Tony because he needed some money and he decided the coach label would be a good way to give something to his friend without hurting his feelings. Mirka, with her huge appetite, decided that money would be better spent on her food so Tony had to go. Oh well, big girlfriends lead to coachless players.

...are warmer in bed...
 
Top