federer fire tony roche in 2007 was worst mistake on his entire carrer ?

[skypadq]

i saw wikipedia at federer hire tony roche in 2005 ~ 2007 may 12
Federer won seven major tournaments during that time.


Tony knows how to play clay. He's the winner of the French Open.


Remembering, Federer's dismissal of Tony is the worst decision in his career history.

i think tony knows how to play with nadal on french open and clay masters



If Tony had been coaching until 2009, at least Fed would have been not lost to Del porto in 09 uso final

 

[Tennis_Hands]

Federer won RG 2009, so, if Roche's services were needed to win on clay, Federer clearly did well enough without him. Other than that, Roche was a great player and I am sure a great coach (although, ironically the two ATGs that hired him for specific knowledge never got what they wanted under him), but Federer rarely makes frivolous things, so there must have been a good reason for that to happen. No one except for Roche and Federer really knows.

 

[skypadq]

Federer won RG 2009, so, if Roche's services were needed to win on clay, Federer clearly did well enough without him. Other than that, Roche was a great player and I am sure a great coach (although, ironically the two ATGs that hired him for specific knowledge never got what they wanted under him), but Federer rarely makes frivolous things, so there must have been a good reason for that to happen. No one except for Roche and Federer really knows.

i think roche was best coach for federer
roche is old school
but he is smart coach
fed keep tony for least 2009
if he did that , least fed would have not lost 2009 uso final

 

[Deleted member 22147]

Tony 'yes Optus' Roche.

Who could forget?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

i think roche was best coach for federer
roche is old school
but he is smart coach
fed keep tony for least 2009
if he did that , least fed would have not lost 2009 uso final

It is just your opinion.

 

[Mainad]

I'd like the low-down on what happened between him and Peter Lundgren who coached him to his first Slam, first YEC and the #1 ranking and then got summarily fired!

I've heard that Mirka had something to do with it.

 

[Deleted member 22147]

I'd like the low-down on what happened between him and Peter Sandgren who coached him to his first Slam, first YEC and the #1 ranking and then got summarily fired!

I've heard that Mirka had something to do with it.

I don't know what happened but Lundgren said in an interview in 2009 that he his top 2 coaching moments are Federer 2003 Wimbledon and Safin 2005 Australian Open. He also said he was still in contact with Federer, which would imply there's not much of an issue. Lundgren said he was in much better contact with Safin, though.

 

[2ndServe]

Federer won RG 2009, so, if Roche's services were needed to win on clay, Federer clearly did well enough without him. Other than that, Roche was a great player and I am sure a great coach (although, ironically the two ATGs that hired him for specific knowledge never got what they wanted under him), but Federer rarely makes frivolous things, so there must have been a good reason for that to happen. No one except for Roche and Federer really knows.

Fed won 2009 because someone else did the heavy lifting not because of some coach change or not. Dude owes Soderling a block of houses and a few private jets.

 

[Bender]

Fed won 2009 because someone else did the heavy lifting not because of some coach change or not. Dude owes Soderling a block of houses and a few private jets.

Instead, arrogant Fedr gave Söderling mono

How selfish [emoji35][emoji35][emoji35][emoji35][emoji35]

 

[Mike Sams]

Fed won 2009 because someone else did the heavy lifting not because of some coach change or not. Dude owes Soderling a block of houses and a few private jets.

Federer was extremely close to losing to Haas and Del Potro in that same tournament. He actually was facing defeat in the face in that 4th round against Haas and pulled it off by some miracle while 2 sets down.

 

[Cashman]

the two ATGs that hired him for specific knowledge never got what they wanted under him

I wouldn’t say that. Lendl and Federer improved substantially on grass and clay respectively under Roche’s tutelage.

They may not have captured the specific title they wanted, but I find it hard to put the blame on Roche for that.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

It wasn't anything to do with the coach. Between 2003 and 2007 Federer took advantage of a transition era between Sampras/Agassi and Nadal/Djokovic. That's it, there is no mystery behind his success during that period. Without the inflated stats of that time Fed is nowhere near the current GOAT race.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

I wouldn’t say that. Lendl and Federer improved substantially on grass and clay respectively under Roche’s tutelage.

They may not have captured the specific title they wanted, but I find it hard to put the blame on Roche for that.

Well, I said that as a fact. I already said that I think that Roche was a very good coach, so my intention was never to denigrate his coaching ability (hence the "ironically" in my post).

 

[Deleted member 763691]

Federer's best performance at Roland Garros vs. Rafa was in 2011

 

[tennis_pro]

It wasn't anything to do with the coach. Between 2003 and 2007 Federer took advantage of a transition era between Sampras/Agassi and Nadal/Djokovic. That's it, there is no mystery behind his success during that period. Without the inflated stats of that time Fed is nowhere near the current GOAT race.

A 20-Slam champion played in a transition era xD you can't make this S up

If there's anyone who is a fake champion it'is Nadal because he only won on clay, never had is own era and came after Fed and before Djokovic.

 

[Tennis_Hands]

It wasn't anything to do with the coach. Between 2003 and 2007 Federer took advantage of a transition era between Sampras/Agassi and Nadal/Djokovic. That's it, there is no mystery behind his success during that period. Without the inflated stats of that time Fed is nowhere near the current GOAT race.

Nadal never had his own era. The history of tennis has firmly Federer's era from the middle of 2003 till the spring of 2010, and Djokovic era from the end of 2010 till now, so you have a lot of reading to do to catch up with what the history of tennis says/will say. Obviously, considering that your post is an absolute nonsense.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

No.

That would be 40-15, three times over, not firing Roche.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Nadal never had his own era. The history of tennis has firmly Federer's era from the middle of 2003 till the spring of 2010, and Djokovic era from the end of 2010 till now, so you have a lot of reading to do to catch up with what the history of tennis says/will say. Obviously, considering that your post is an absolute nonsense.

He never said Nadal had his own era.

He posted Nadal/Djokovic era.

Claro?

Yes, slashes can be so confusing...

 

[KINGROGER]

It wasn't anything to do with the coach. Between 2003 and 2007 Federer took advantage of a transition era between Sampras/Agassi and Nadal/Djokovic. That's it, there is no mystery behind his success during that period. Without the inflated stats of that time Fed is nowhere near the current GOAT race.

Imagine actually typing this crap in a serious manner.

 

[UnderratedSlam]

Imagine actually typing this crap in a serious manner.

Imagine actually typing this crap in a serious manner.

 

[KINGROGER]

Imagine actually typing this crap in a serious manner.

?

 

[Poisoned Slice]

I'd like the low-down on what happened between him and Peter Lundgren who coached him to his first Slam, first YEC and the #1 ranking and then got summarily fired!

I've heard that Mirka had something to do with it.

He turned down her advances.

 

[Nadalgaenger]

I'd like the low-down on what happened between him and Peter Lundgren who coached him to his first Slam, first YEC and the #1 ranking and then got summarily fired!

I've heard that Mirka had something to do with it.

Fed is probably a diva. He’s got to be hard to coach, as he is stubborn like a recalcitrant billy GOAT

 

[BeatlesFan]

Imagine actually typing this crap in a serious manner.

Imagine the mindset of someone that hate-filled and clueless? And this guy used to be a decent poster. They denigrate all of Fed's records but then spend their entire life desperately hoping their guy surpasses these same records since they lvie vicariously through him. A contradiction in terms, but they're too stupid to figure that one out.

 

[Eren]

Federer's best performance at Roland Garros vs. Rafa was in 2011

Disagree, it was 06 or 07. The last set in 06 was a tiebreaker and it was a 1-6 defeat in 2011 lol.

 

[DSH]

Nothing he can do.
It's just that Nadal is thousands of times better than the competition.

 

[BeatlesFan]

Federer didn't fire Roche. They had an agreement where Roche would travel with him a portion of the season and Tony lives in Australia, it was too much for him and his family, as he's stated many times.

Fed said then: “I thank Tony very much for his efforts over these last years, during which I appreciated the 12-15 weeks per season we would work together. I am also grateful for the sacrifice he made, travelling so far from his home in Australia and leaving his family.”

 

[beltsman]

Federer didn't fire Roche. They had an agreement where Roche would travel with him a portion of the season and Tony lives in Australia, it was too much for him and his family, as he's stated many times.

Fed said then: “I thank Tony very much for his efforts over these last years, during which I appreciated the 12-15 weeks per season we would work together. I am also grateful for the sacrifice he made, travelling so far from his home in Australia and leaving his family.”

While we're on the topic, why did Federer split with Lundgren? Or did Lundgren split with Federer?

 

[Tennis_Hands]

He never said Nadal had his own era.

He posted Nadal/Djokovic era.

Claro?

Yes, slashes can be so confusing...

There is no Nadal/Djokovic era. It is firmly Djokovic's era. Slashes are confusing when introducing ambiguity that has no place in there.

 

[Tennease]

I think it's not Federer firing Roche. It's more like Roche was getting old and didn't want to travel around the world too much.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

A 20-Slam champion played in a transition era xD you can't make this S up

If there's anyone who is a fake champion it'is Nadal because he only won on clay, never had is own era and came after Fed and before Djokovic.

You're right, you can't make this up - it is all true:

Between 2003 & 2007 (remember, he was still only 26 in 2007):

• 12/20 slams, 60% of his total - win rate significantly drops post 2007 once transition era ends
• 4/5 YE # 1, 80% of his total - win rate significantly drops post 2007 once transition era ends
• 204/310 weeks @ # 1, 65% of his total - win rate significantly drops post 2007 once transition era ends
• 4/6 WTF, 66% of his total - win rate significantly drops post 2007 once transition era ends

Win rates in all of these major categories significantly drop post 2007 once the transition era ends except his M1000 win rate. Let's remember that he was only 27 in 2008. Still a great player, don't get me wrong, in fact the third beset of all time, but the guy is a transition era champ.

Nadal actually did have his own era which is comprable in success to both Fed (despite the above mentioned leg-up) and Djokovic.

2005 - 2014 Rafa won:

• 14 slams
• YE # 1 three times
• 140 weeks at number 1 during the time of the other two greatest ever
• An Olympic singles gold medal

There is also something to be said for a guy that, on top of his total 5 YE # 1's has shown more ranking consistency than anyone else ever.

Your 'clay specialist' trope falls over when you realise that Rafa's off-clay resume is almost the equal of the entire career of ATG's like McEnroe and Agassi and Rafa's M1000 hard court title count is almost the equal of Pete Sampras' entire M1000 resume.

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Imagine actually typing this crap in a serious manner.

I've shown you previously with actual data that 60% (minimum) of Fed's resume was built between 2003 - 2007 and then from 2008 onwards at the ripe old age of 27 his winning rate in all major categories except M1000 fell of a cliff. How would you explain the drop off in Fed's results co-inciding with the end of the transition era?

 

[LETitBE]

I've shown you previously with actual data that 60% (minimum) of Fed's resume was built between 2003 - 2007 and then from 2008 onwards at the ripe old age of 27 his winning rate in all major categories except M1000 fell of a cliff. How would you explain the drop off in Fed's results co-inciding with the end of the transition era?

who else has won everything for 5 years straight,he was getting a BIG head and it cost him a lot

 

[titoelcolombiano]

who else has won everything for 5 years straight,he was getting a BIG head and it cost him a lot

I think the more obvious answer is that some competition showed up and he was shown to be not quite as invincible as he was made out to be.

 

[SonnyT]

Three reasons why Federer's specific coaches don't really matter that much:

1) They're expendable, that's why Fed has gone thru a long list of them. Nadal went thru one transition: Uncle->Moya; Novak went thru one: Vajda (his Slovak uncle, essentially)->Becker->Vajda
2) Fed's coaches are more like advisers and friends; no uncles, please. RF is always chairman of the board and CEO.
3) Federer is famously stubborn; and thinks he knows more about tennis than anyone!

Nadal and Djokovic's coaches had real effect on their games. Nadal needed Moya to transition from one playing deep behind the baseline to one playing on top of it, to prolong his career and success in effect. Djokovic learned the killer's instinct and ruthlessness from Becker, among other things.

Federer's coaches were responsible for cosmetic little tweaks here and there, but nothing major. He could not have allowed it!

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

While we're on the topic, why did Federer split with Lundgren? Or did Lundgren split with Federer?

Lundgren's issues with alcohol are well known on tour.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Thread title is a good question though.

What is Roger's worst mistake in his career?

Inb4 40-15. Now for serious replies.

 

[beltsman]

Thread title is a good question though.

What is Roger's worst mistake in his career?

Inb4 40-15. Now for serious replies.

I take it you mean off-court mistake?

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

I take it you mean off-court mistake?

Yep

 

[beltsman]

Yep

Probably not switching racquets sooner I guess. You could also argue that Fedberg, while awesome, was a dead end for winning slams

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

Probably not switching racquets sooner I guess. You could also argue that Fedberg, while awesome, was a dead end for winning slams

The Edberg effect was there but delayed. Just as Higueras' coaching.

Many won't believe it today what with all the Roger drop shot highlights on youtube, but Roger NEVER used the drop shot before Higueras circa 2008!!

 

[titoelcolombiano]

Federer won RG 2009, so, if Roche's services were needed to win on clay, Federer clearly did well enough without him. Other than that, Roche was a great player and I am sure a great coach (although, ironically the two ATGs that hired him for specific knowledge never got what they wanted under him), but Federer rarely makes frivolous things, so there must have been a good reason for that to happen. No one except for Roche and Federer really knows.

There's only one reason Federer ever won a RG title and we all know what that reason is.

 

[GhostOfNKDM]

There's only one reason Federer ever won a RG title and we all know what that reason is.

That he's an amazing clay court player!

Glad we agree with Rafa.

 

[SonnyT]

Tony Roche won RG in '66, over 50 years ago. Tennis went thru several drastic changes since then. At that time, the Aussies dominated everything; in '66, they won 3 of 4 majors (Emerson and Laver)!

Federer was absolutely correct, his later coaches were much younger, and had much more experience of today's era.

 

[ghostofMecir]

Federer was extremely close to losing to Haas and Del Potro in that same tournament. He actually was facing defeat in the face in that 4th round against Haas and pulled it off by some miracle while 2 sets down.

Not really a miracle. He had outplayed Haas for the most part and was unlucky to be down two sets.

 

[beltsman]

The Edberg effect was there but delayed. Just as Higueras' coaching.

Many won't believe it today what with all the Roger drop shot highlights on youtube, but Roger NEVER used the drop shot before Higueras circa 2008!!

His net play got noticeably worse from 17 and after though since he wasn't focusing on it. Still good, but not at the insane 2015 level.

 

[Bartelby]

Changing coaches is good for a player like Federer who likes to be challenged.

 

[DIMI_D]

skypadq = GOAT

 

[SonnyT]

Edberg was unlucky as a coach. IMO Federer played exceptional during his term, but met Djokovic so many times at Slams. He quit just about the same time as Djokovic began his 2-year tailspin.

Federer started his domination of Nadal while Edberg was coach.

 

[mike danny]

The Edberg effect was there but delayed. Just as Higueras' coaching.

Many won't believe it today what with all the Roger drop shot highlights on youtube, but Roger NEVER used the drop shot before Higueras circa 2008!!

He did actually.