skiracer55
Hall of Fame
Thanks much...
...and you know what? In truth, I think you have the inside line on this one...
...and you know what? In truth, I think you have the inside line on this one...
Roger And Tony Roche End Coaching Relationship
- Thread starter asitkin
- Start date
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I think Wilander had it right. Federer needs to play outside his comfort level against Nads. Y'all are 100% right, it's about matchups. And the old adage "Never change a winning game, but always change a losing one" is one that Federer should take to heart. It would be one thing if Nads had tweaked him a couple of times on clay, but Nads is getting to be to Federer as Federer is to Roddick.
You never know, Roche could have said "If you're not listening to me, I'm going home" rather than Fed sending him to the house.
You never know, Roche could have said "If you're not listening to me, I'm going home" rather than Fed sending him to the house.
Last edited:
CEvertFan
Hall of Fame
I never said it was Roche's fault. He taught Lendl to volley to the best that Ivan's ability would allow, but it wasn't good enough to win Wimbledon because volleying isn't Lendl's strength. I think Lendl more than Roche thought HE needed to volley every point when I don't think he did. He was a strong, powerful baseliner who had great passing shots and could run all day and that is what he should have stuck with. Lendl could have come to net when the opportunity presented itself, and not try so hard to create the opportunity because that was something that never came naturally to him.
Rabbit
G.O.A.T.
I think Lendl's nerves more than anything cost him at Wimbledon. Well nerves and two pretty good grass court players. Lendl made the finals of Wimbledon twice, once losing to Boris Becker 6-4 6-3 7-5 in 1986. Along the way, Lendl defeated a couple of pretty good grass courters in Tim Mayotte and Slobodan Zivojinivic.
The next year he lost to Pat Cash (1987) 7-6 6-2 7-5. In that year, he played even better defeating a series of good grass courters qualifier a Romanian named Saceanu, Reneberg an American, Johann Kriek (then the fastest man in tennis), and Stefan Edberg who had a couple of good showings on grass.
All in all, not bad showings for a guy who said he was allergic to grass. I think the combination of Lendl and Roche did just fine.
The next year he lost to Pat Cash (1987) 7-6 6-2 7-5. In that year, he played even better defeating a series of good grass courters qualifier a Romanian named Saceanu, Reneberg an American, Johann Kriek (then the fastest man in tennis), and Stefan Edberg who had a couple of good showings on grass.
All in all, not bad showings for a guy who said he was allergic to grass. I think the combination of Lendl and Roche did just fine.
Last edited:
Let's see...It was in the 70s I believe when the 2hbh came into being? Connors and Borg made it really popular. But then, I believe McEnroe did well, Edberg, Vilas, Lendl, Sampras, etc. also did well. It appears that the 2hbh does better on clay, since Vilas was one of the few that did well on that surface in the modern era. Even the great modern 1hbhs haven't done well at RG. The slowness of the surface and unpredictability of bounces favors the 2hbh because players can get to the ball better and it's easier to adjust for poor bounces with two hands on the racquet I believe. The 1hbh is a better defensive shot and the slice skids on hard surfaces, but sits up on clay allowing quick-footed players to run around and crunch forehands, or explode with 2hbhs. Two-handers are likely to continue to be superior on clay, but they aren't likely to dominate the other surfaces, Borg notwithstanding
. What do you think?I read that as well. Roger is quoted as saying that he had been thinking about it for a few months. It seems the part time nature and distance of the relationship wasn't working for him. See the article where Roger was quoted.
crosscourt
Professional
Let's see...It was in the 70s I believe when the 2hbh came into being? Connors and Borg made it really popular. But then, I believe McEnroe did well, Edberg, Vilas, Lendl, Sampras, etc. also did well. It appears that the 2hbh does better on clay, since Vilas was one of the few that did well on that surface in the modern era. Even the great modern 1hbhs haven't done well at RG. The slowness of the surface and unpredictability of bounces favors the 2hbh because players can get to the ball better and it's easier to adjust for poor bounces with two hands on the racquet I believe. The 1hbh is a better defensive shot and the slice skids on hard surfaces, but sits up on clay allowing quick-footed players to run around and crunch forehands, or explode with 2hbhs. Two-handers are likely to continue to be superior on clay, but they aren't likely to dominate the other surfaces, Borg notwithstanding
Kuerten had a great one hander and won RG three times, so there are some guys who can become greats on clay with a one hander. I also think that Muster had a one hander. And of course Lendl.
cc
ksbh
Banned
Found this in the article-
"Federer’s can beat Nadal at the French Open if he does the following: 1) Uses a variety of spin, depth, and pace to disrupt Nadal’s baseline rhythm; 2) Employs low, short slice down the middle that decrease Nadal’s angles and forces him to hit up on the ball; 3) Forces Nadal to play at net more than he would like; 4) Attacks Nadal’s second serve and forces passing shot attempts; and 5) Serves and volleys at least 25% of the time. If the above combination doesn’t work for Federer against Nadal on clay, then he may remain the greatest player of all time without a French Open title."
LOL, like saying if Roddick could, on grass-
1. Disguise his serve
2. make spinning & stop volleys
3. Keep the ball deep on the baseline
then he could win Wimbledon! Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal.
"Federer’s can beat Nadal at the French Open if he does the following: 1) Uses a variety of spin, depth, and pace to disrupt Nadal’s baseline rhythm; 2) Employs low, short slice down the middle that decrease Nadal’s angles and forces him to hit up on the ball; 3) Forces Nadal to play at net more than he would like; 4) Attacks Nadal’s second serve and forces passing shot attempts; and 5) Serves and volleys at least 25% of the time. If the above combination doesn’t work for Federer against Nadal on clay, then he may remain the greatest player of all time without a French Open title."
LOL, like saying if Roddick could, on grass-
1. Disguise his serve
2. make spinning & stop volleys
3. Keep the ball deep on the baseline
then he could win Wimbledon! Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal.
Last edited:
ksbh
Banned
I read the artivle again and I have to question the writers knowledge of Tennis. 2 Points he makes that are outrageous!-
------------------------------------------------
1. Roger Federer has all the physical tools to win the French Open and to complete the first men’s tennis Grand Slam in almost 40 years, but to do so he has to get past Rafael Nadal, the greatest clay court player in the history of tennis.
2. There’s no denying Roger Federer’s genius on the tennis court. He brings as complete a game to the court as any player in tennis history. He possesses perhaps the best forehand in the game, hits his backhand with power and spin, moves with gazelle-like ease for deceptive speed, and rivals John McEnroe’s virtuosity at net.
------------------------------------------------
So Nadal with 2 RG titles is already greater than Borg who won 6 RG titles in 8 years? And Federer rivals John McEnroe’s virtuosity at net? ROFL ... the junk that some writers write!
------------------------------------------------
1. Roger Federer has all the physical tools to win the French Open and to complete the first men’s tennis Grand Slam in almost 40 years, but to do so he has to get past Rafael Nadal, the greatest clay court player in the history of tennis.
2. There’s no denying Roger Federer’s genius on the tennis court. He brings as complete a game to the court as any player in tennis history. He possesses perhaps the best forehand in the game, hits his backhand with power and spin, moves with gazelle-like ease for deceptive speed, and rivals John McEnroe’s virtuosity at net.
------------------------------------------------
So Nadal with 2 RG titles is already greater than Borg who won 6 RG titles in 8 years? And Federer rivals John McEnroe’s virtuosity at net? ROFL ... the junk that some writers write!
Comparing eras is problematic. The game was very different when Borg played, and few doubt that Borg's game would likely not hold up against Nadal's, just as Bob Cousy, the greatest of his era among NBA guards, would be lost trying to keep up with the best guards of today. In all sports, the best players of today can do things that players of yesteryear couldn't imagine. (Lendl voiced this last year when interviewed at the US Open, saying the best players of his era couldn't possibly compete with the best of today, given the greater speed and power in the game.) Borg's streaks were amazing in their era, but don't mean he has the abilities, speed, conditioning of contemporary players. And McEnroe marvels at Fed's net play, asserting he is easily the most talented player to ever play the game.
I agree....it's just pure speculation when trying to compare players from different eras.....and sometimes an era can be a short period of time in tennis. ie; I belive Samps and Fed are from diff eras as the game has changed significantly even in that short period of time since Sampras has retired.
tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
Back to the main topic.
Who thinks Tony Roche initiated this separation? Tony may feel he didn't do a good job with Fed ever since Indian Wells, especially after Fed's loss in Rome. And Fed agreed with it since he was without a coach before. Tony gave Fed some of his last advice on doing well on clay before he left. So what is left for Fed is just to get all the strategies together and win.
Who thinks Tony Roche initiated this separation? Tony may feel he didn't do a good job with Fed ever since Indian Wells, especially after Fed's loss in Rome. And Fed agreed with it since he was without a coach before. Tony gave Fed some of his last advice on doing well on clay before he left. So what is left for Fed is just to get all the strategies together and win.
Given Tony is now in talks with Lleyton (or so the aussie media is reporting), maybe the instigation came from Lleyton / Lleyton's camp!!!
tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
highly possible.
Is there another player in the history of tennis that has come close to winning 79 straight clay court matches? That was the basis for calling Nadal the greatest clay court player to ever play the game.
It appears that some of the greatest to ever play, McEnroe, Laver, Sampras, etc. are also outrageous because they make the same claims about Roger Federer. Perhaps you haven't seen Roger play net much (and he really should play more there), but his hands are superb when he does go there.
Probably simpler reasons - it has been written that he was not happy with the bonuses he got from Fed.
I agree with you on Kuerten and there have been others such as Vilas, but there are exceptions to every rule. The point isn't that 1hbh players can't play on clay, but clay is more of an equalizer for players with 2hbhs.
Huh? Federer isn't capable? I don't think there's much on a tennis court that Fed isn't capable of doing. I'd at least like to see him try.
Wouldn't surprise me any. If a player isn't implementing what you'd like him to do, you may feel like you're wasting time and energy.
P
poplar
Guest
I think it's the scheduling problem. Tony always seems very reluctant to travel.
I dont really think tony or roger would let anybody know about it if there was indeed some disagreement about bonus. So how would people know?
ksbh
Banned
Tamaj,
Again, here is the point I made-
"Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal"
Please note that I said "against someone like Nadal". Nadal forces Fed into playing the kind of game he (Fed) doesn't like to play. In other words, Nadal imposes his will on Federer. It's exactly why Federer's game falls apart while playing Nadal. If Federer could do everything the writer suggests he should, he would have 5-0 record against Nadal on clay, not 0-5.
As regards the notion that there's nothing Fed can't do on a tennis court, that's just a myth. He wouldn't have a losing record against Nadal, if that were the case. There's nothing he can't do on a tennis court, alright ... but that's only against the players that lack his skill (which unfortunately just happens to be everyone but a certain Rafael Nadal!)
Again, here is the point I made-
"Point is, Roddick isn't capable of doing things like that much like Federer isn't capable of doing all of the things mentioned at the top against someone like Nadal"
Please note that I said "against someone like Nadal". Nadal forces Fed into playing the kind of game he (Fed) doesn't like to play. In other words, Nadal imposes his will on Federer. It's exactly why Federer's game falls apart while playing Nadal. If Federer could do everything the writer suggests he should, he would have 5-0 record against Nadal on clay, not 0-5.
As regards the notion that there's nothing Fed can't do on a tennis court, that's just a myth. He wouldn't have a losing record against Nadal, if that were the case. There's nothing he can't do on a tennis court, alright ... but that's only against the players that lack his skill (which unfortunately just happens to be everyone but a certain Rafael Nadal!)
Last edited:
No-one can beat Nadal on clay so far. If anyone could to beat him on dirt, that'd be Federer. He came mighty close, closer than any other clay-court specialists IMO.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Absolutely. Claycourt greatness has less to do with the number of hands you use on your BH...and more to do with patience, tenacity, finesse/versatility and movement.
I know this may not have been your point at all, but how cool would that be if Guga called Federer about the position at some point within the next year or so? That's a team I think a lot of players would root for. On the other hand, I believe Guga is a friend of Nadal and his team (they have practiced together...but then again, so have Guga and Rog).
ksbh
Banned
I can't really argue the point you make because it is a valid one thus far. I do believe that Nadal has imposed his will on Fed, but I wouldn't go so far as to say that Fed can't modify that status quo. Funny, just yesterday I was saying that Nadal is like Tiger Woods and Fed is like Phil Mickelson. It's that steely mind that Tiger and Rafa seem to have, and Phil and Rog seem to fall just a tad short on.
Roger has looked as though he doesn't believe he can beat Rafa and it shows on big points in crunch time. If Nadal starts believing that he can beat Fed on Grass (and I believe he is probably about there) then Roger will need to do something about the imposition of wills. Is that even something a player can control?
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
This is where the rubber meets the road. And a coach helps.
ksbh
Banned
Tamaj ... you write some great posts man and I"m enjoying reading your posts. Keep writing, please!
This particular point you make ... "If Nadal starts believing that he can beat Fed on Grass (and I believe he is probably about there) then Roger will need to do something about the imposition of wills."
Yes, I agree. I believe as well that Nadal thinks he's probably about there. It's an intriguing prospect. When Nadal made the finals at Wimbledon last year, I wasn't entirely sure Fed would win. Though Rafa lost, he vindicated my feeling. I think he just choked (didn't think anyone could write choke and Rafa on the same line and I hope Morrissey doesn't come after my throat! )but overall, a very good peformance for someone with less than a dozen matches on grass! I really like to see what Nadal can bring to the court against Federer on grass this year and for that reason, I hope he makes it to the Wimbledon final.
His serve has constantly been improving, his offense has improved considerably (look at his current offensive game on clay, of all surfaces!) and self-confidence has never been short for him. I wouldn't bet on Federer winning.
This particular point you make ... "If Nadal starts believing that he can beat Fed on Grass (and I believe he is probably about there) then Roger will need to do something about the imposition of wills."
Yes, I agree. I believe as well that Nadal thinks he's probably about there. It's an intriguing prospect. When Nadal made the finals at Wimbledon last year, I wasn't entirely sure Fed would win. Though Rafa lost, he vindicated my feeling. I think he just choked (didn't think anyone could write choke and Rafa on the same line and I hope Morrissey doesn't come after my throat!
)but overall, a very good peformance for someone with less than a dozen matches on grass! I really like to see what Nadal can bring to the court against Federer on grass this year and for that reason, I hope he makes it to the Wimbledon final. His serve has constantly been improving, his offense has improved considerably (look at his current offensive game on clay, of all surfaces!) and self-confidence has never been short for him. I wouldn't bet on Federer winning.
Last edited:
That's a laugh. Nadal beating Federer on clay.
At last years Wimbledon final, Federer blew him out. The first set, Federer simply obliterated him on. The 2nd set was close, but Federer won. The 3rd set, Nadal won. But the 4th set, Federer again pulled away, and his superiority over Nadal was just evident: it was obvious from the beginning of that set that it was just a matter of time.
Nadal did well to get to the final of Wimbledon last year -- you can't do any better than to beat the players your assigned to play against -- but that doesn't make his draw anymore impressive. With good grass-court players like Roddick again having found their game, and some up-coming youngsters also having found their game more, I highly doubt Nadal gets back to the final (unless everyone who's good is on Federer's side of the draw).
At last years Wimbledon final, Federer blew him out. The first set, Federer simply obliterated him on. The 2nd set was close, but Federer won. The 3rd set, Nadal won. But the 4th set, Federer again pulled away, and his superiority over Nadal was just evident: it was obvious from the beginning of that set that it was just a matter of time.
Nadal did well to get to the final of Wimbledon last year -- you can't do any better than to beat the players your assigned to play against -- but that doesn't make his draw anymore impressive. With good grass-court players like Roddick again having found their game, and some up-coming youngsters also having found their game more, I highly doubt Nadal gets back to the final (unless everyone who's good is on Federer's side of the draw).
With all the talk about young guns looking to beat Fed at the last AO, he got tough & played tough. Didn't concede a single set throughout. That's the Fed that he needs to be particularly at the French.
tennis_hand
Hall of Fame
he won't. Agassi helped him.
I think a coach might help, but only if Roger believes and trusts the coach. At this point, it's almost like Rafa is like Mike Tyson used to be or Like Tiger Woods. People just don't think they have what it takes to stand up to the guy and I believe you can see the doubt when Roger plays him. Confidence is such a huge part of the sport, any sport, and the kind of domination Roger has experienced at Nadal's hands is so unfamiliar, it would be really tough for Roger to feel confident against him.
I'm with FSBH. That was an impressive showing for Nadal at Wimbledon last year against a guy who has been untouchable on the surface, especially given his inexperience on the surface as FSBH pointed out. I'll have to see if Nadal can bring the same kind of game he's bringing here, but I have no reason to think he won't. The guy has the mentality of all the greats. You have to rip a victory from his clenched fists with him spitting nails in your face. Unfortunately, my boy Roger is a nice guy and hasn't figured out how to put a leash on the pit bull that is Rafa.
l_gonzalez
Professional
The grass at Wimbledon is not what it used to be... These days it's playing more like a medium-fast hard court, definitely slower than the US Open.
Rafa knows this and everybody knows this, so I think Rafa truly believes that he can beat Federer at Wimbledon. It's a case of mind over matter from my point of view, if you truly believe something and you have the desire that Rafa has, then anything is possible. The again there's the fear that Rafa clearly instills in Federer... you can see it in Fed's eyes, he does not like looking up and seeing Nadal on the other side, pumping his left bicep.
As far as Roddick blowing away Nadal at Wimbledon... i don't see it happening. I think it's too close to call.
Rafa knows this and everybody knows this, so I think Rafa truly believes that he can beat Federer at Wimbledon. It's a case of mind over matter from my point of view, if you truly believe something and you have the desire that Rafa has, then anything is possible. The again there's the fear that Rafa clearly instills in Federer... you can see it in Fed's eyes, he does not like looking up and seeing Nadal on the other side, pumping his left bicep.
As far as Roddick blowing away Nadal at Wimbledon... i don't see it happening. I think it's too close to call.
Wimbledon is still Wimbledon. What I've heard is that they're actually trying to speed it up a little bit.
In any event, grass suits Federer's game and quick reflexes whether it's playing super-quick or not.
Federer is arguably the best grass-courter ever -- Sampras and Borg being the other candidates -- and will against easily beat Nadal at the Wimby final, if Nadal makes it (which is a long shot to begin with).
In any event, grass suits Federer's game and quick reflexes whether it's playing super-quick or not.
Federer is arguably the best grass-courter ever -- Sampras and Borg being the other candidates -- and will against easily beat Nadal at the Wimby final, if Nadal makes it (which is a long shot to begin with).
l_gonzalez
Professional
you're right, he's the best grass-court player ever... just don't underestimate the power of Nadal's desire and will to win... Hunger is what drives a player.
I'm not a Nadal fan btw... I'm all for Federer, but i just think that Nadal is exceptional.
slice bh compliment
G.O.A.T.
Buster Douglas, meet Roger Federer. Roger, this is Buster Douglas. Glad you two could finally meet. I'll leave you two alone for a few weeks.;-)
I have always been a Federer fan, but Nadal is winning me over by making necessary adjustments to improve. Roger needs to show me that he's willing to do something different, that he can get Nadal out of his head. Nadal's incorporation of a net game is making a believer of me. I'm still pulling for the Fed though.
Nadal is a better player this year than he was last year. He is more mature, more consistent, is better in the front court, and has increased his mental edge on Roger. Those are reasons why realistic Roger fans believe Nadal is a threat even at Wimbledon. Even the strategy (which some have critiqued) I thought would take Nadal out might not work. Gonzalez did a pretty decent job of employing it today and he went down in straights! Of course Roger is better than Gonzalez, but...
Better on clay, but he's done hardly nothing on any other surface, including the AO, which was supposed to favor his game.
Despite his recent "slump", it would take a pretty big nut to say that Federer hasn't improved his game significantly as well. He was starting to be challenged, and he raised his game enormously at the AO, winning it without losing a set. And that's on a surface that some say gives him trouble.
Nadal simply doesn't have the natural talent that Federer does.
Despite his recent "slump", it would take a pretty big nut to say that Federer hasn't improved his game significantly as well. He was starting to be challenged, and he raised his game enormously at the AO, winning it without losing a set. And that's on a surface that some say gives him trouble.
Nadal simply doesn't have the natural talent that Federer does.
Similar threads
