Federer's problems

First topic message reminder :

There is now little dispute in the tennis community that Roger 'shanky' Federer won his titles in a weak era. If the likes of Nalbandian and Safin had fulfilled their potential, then we would no doubt had many classic finals and Roger would have 'deserved all he got'. However unfortunatly for Roger (and he knows this) he won his titles facing one dimensional lightweights. This of course does not automatically diminish Roger's brilliance (he can only play what's in front of him) but it means he can not be accuratly compared with past and future greats. To put further doubts into his claims for greatness are his is seemingly mental problems when a genuine challenge is presented. It is my opinion that Federer's overweening vanity causes him to collapse when facing adversity. Australian 2009, Us open 2009 and his dismal record against Raphael Nadull support this hypothesis. Why is he so bad at taking breaking points? Even on Sunday, he had to rely on rare rafa shanks to convert break points. He always looking vunerable the game after. His arms tightening as he struggles to come to terms with the fact he's not facing Roddick. In conclusion, is it time for the tennis world to consider asterixing those slam titles they deem unworthy of top class tennis?

Wow, I presume you meant the other link.
Yes I know he's bad match-up - I posted it because the thread title is 'Federer's problems'...to which I dont agree with most of what the OP writes. However, most tennis fans recognise Nadal has been Federer's main "problem" - this article discusses why. It doesnt have to be definitive, its an opinion.
Yes, Nadal may not win another slam, maybe he will. Nole beat Rafa 3 times straight last year then lost the USO final. We can never assume anything about the future, but we can reflect on the past.

I am not a Rafa fan but I like his tenacity. I think part of the problem is that Fed has played far too many games against Nadal on clay and we all know that it is near impossible to beat him on clay.

These wins have given Rafa the required confidence. Also, we talked about Fed's team but in my opinion Uncle Nadal is a master tactician and he has played a crucial role in nadal's success.

Before winning FO 2010 , Rafa was going through a bad phase (he had won 3 masters but no slams since oz open 09) but he made a tremendous turnaround.

I have seen Rafa practising at ATP tour finals and it seems that his team prepares very thoroughly for each and every event and is comprised of very talented back staff.

Thanks laverfan, I've discussed Federer's history of working with coaches before. Infact I wrote a thread article on 606 way back in August 2008 looking at the past coaches of Federer and the impact I believe that Peter Carter had on Roger - or rather Carter's death.
Here's what I wrote.....and it fits into the article of Roger not liking working with coaches from the article above although I hadnt read that article at the time of writing the below.

Peter Carter
Peter Carter was Federer's early coach and mentor and helped him develop the game he has today. In 1999 Carter didnt want to travel extensively anymore so they split working but he would remain a great friend and mentor to Federer - indeed, Carter and Federer worked together to select Lundgren.

Peter Lundgren
Having said that, Federer admired Lundgren because he was the former coach of Rios who Federer also admired [why Rios??!!].

During working with Lundgren, Fed still regularly consulted with his friend Carter until he was killed in a car accident in 2002. Federer was understandably devastated by this loss and at the time said..."He was a very close friend. Peter wasn't my first coach, but he was my real coach. I made trips with him. He knew me and my game, and he was always thinking of what was good for me". I've never heard Fed speak about the relationship with any other coach in this way since and bear in mind he was well into working with Lundgren by then. How did Lundgren felt about Carter being called "my real coach"?

We know that Federer had limited success with Lundgren [1 slam] and that the relationship came to an end in 2003 when Federer felt the relationship was going nowhere.

Tony Roche
Since Lundgren, Federer has hooked up with coaches to specifically help him win the French, not full time coaches. Why?
He hooked with Roche in 2005. Roche had won the FO and was highly regarded. They worked together 12 weeks a year across FO & SW19 and won 6 out of Fed's 10 slams at the time. That relationship is said to have ended in 2007 on bad terms but no-one knows why. Federer's form has gone down since.

Jose Higueras
Fed's next coach was Higueras. But this arrangement hasnt worked and Federer has descended into a slump - Higueras hasnt added anything to Federer's game or gameplan, and he's certainly not helped Federer mentally. Or perhaps Federer again hasnt allowed this seasoned coach to help him. This relationship is unlikely to last beyond 2008.

OBSERVATIONS
Its hardly been a glittering career working with coaches besides Carter. Why?

1. I believe the move to Lundgren (and subsequent loss of Carter during that) affected how many slams Roger could have won in the 'early years'. I actually believe Lundgren held him back - a point proved when Federer dropped him in 2003 stating the relationship was stale. For his talent he probably should have won more slams during 2001/2002/2003.

2. The inability to work with coaches after Carter is either due to:
a) Carter's death profoundly affecting him
b) Roger feels he knows whats best for him
c) Mirka feels she knows whats best for him.

3. No coach has helped him to work out Rafa - or perhaps he hasnt truly opened up to any coach to help him win the French. Roche came the closest [Rome 06 was probably his best overall effort vs. Rafa on clay]
a) So why DID he get rid of Roche when it seemed to be working?
b) What was it that Roche probably told Federer that he didnt like?

wow wrote:I am not a Rafa fan but I like his tenacity. I think part of the problem is that Fed has played far too many games against Nadal on clay and we all know that it is near impossible to beat him on clay.

These wins have given Rafa the required confidence. Also, we talked about Fed's team but in my opinion Uncle Nadal is a master tactician and he has played a crucial role in nadal's success.

Before winning FO 2010 , Rafa was going through a bad phase (he had won 3 masters but no slams since oz open 09) but he made a tremendous turnaround.

I have seen Rafa practising at ATP tour finals and it seems that his team prepares very thoroughly for each and every event and is comprised of very talented back staff.

Yes he has a great team but the talent has to come from Nadal too. Lets not forget 2009 was an annus horribilis for Nadal - injury that plagued him from Miami, March 2009 to late in the year causing him to pull out of Wimbledon, and the absence led to other problems later in the year. Plus his parents divorced that year which affected him badly as a close knit family guy.

Interesting post lydian, what do you think of Paul Annacombe, do you think he has helped?

Debate him or ignore him - that is your choice, but please do not try to tell us what is suitable for the forum.

Totally agree with that. I must say that as much as I did not mind Unbiased_educator I found Boromir's posts very boring. But again, it's so easy to ignore those posts. I won't argue the content of his post but thought I woudl respond on the moderating issue as this forum is quite new and thus far doing a great job which I wanted to support here.

A tennis forum is to express tennis views, not what some of us think are "the right views". The problem with Boromir however is that he doesn't even believe in his "views". He is just trying to convince himself.

As long as we haven't 5 posts per day like those, it's fine by me. They can easily slide unoticed in history.

I think Annacone has been a great success to be honest. Its clear that in mid-2010 Federer realised that his best might not be good enough anymore to win more slams, so he took the risk with Paul Annacone because he knew he had to. The results since have been good and he seems more confident in using all his shots now. When we look at Fed's 2010 results after he played a very good AO to win it, it was a near disaster - beaten by Baghdatis in R2 Indian Wells, beaten by Berdy in R4 Miami; beaten by Gulbis in R1 in Rome; beaten by Montanes in SF in Estoril; beaten by Nadal in the final of Madrid; beaten by Soderling in RG quarters; beaten by Hewitt in the Halle final; and he suffered that bad loss to Berdy in the SW19 quarters.

Since Annacone joined Federer, Fed reached the final of Canada Masters where he beat Djokovic and Berdych before beaten by Andy Murray; he won Cincinnati; reached the USO semis and had 2 MP's vs Djokovic; beat Djokovic and Soderling to reach Shanghai final; then won Stockholm, Basel, and reached the SF of Paris Indoors; and then at end of 2010, he won the ATP World Finals beating Murray and Nadal. He opened 2011 by winning Doha, and has looked fairly solid through 2011 subsequently great performances at RG. Annacone has said he feels he was a catalyst to the improvement and they have looked at all bases - something Federer wouldnt do before. Federer has said that he's happy since Paul has been in his team and acknowledges his success and playing level has gone up. There's a theory that the reason Federer was able to make his big push in autumn 2010 was because he became more aggressive, and while there's some truth in that, it's also because he became more secure in his game plans (which he was poorer at before as the profile article also discusses) about specific players. Without a doubt, Fed is taking his backhand more on the rise now, isn't slicing as much and is able to use it more as weapon down the line, which helps him a great deal. He's also attacking the net more, not in all matches, but in matches where it's more to his advantage to close the point rather than playing tiring rallies from the baseline.

He's being a little more attacking with his BH now, using a little more variation, not just slicing, not just hitting. Annacone saw that he came into the net more earlier in his career and has reencouraged that - he's helped Fed understand when to come in and not. Fed has admitted that with his huge success he got too comfortable with his game - Annacone has made Fed make some changes to be more aggressive, play his shots more and stick to game plans - so yes I think its been a good hook-up for Federer considering how bad 2010 was before Annacone came.

Your thoughts?

No coach has helped him to work out Rafa - or perhaps he hasnt truly opened up to any coach to help him win the French. Roche came the closest [Rome 06 was probably his best overall effort vs. Rafa on clay]
-------------------------------------------

Frankly how can he work out Rafa?

When will you learn that Nadal is a physical challenge that No player overcame bar Djoko and maybe Murray by both becoming themselves more physical?

Luckily Federer has enough talent t beat Nadal with his genius but can only beat him regularly on faster surfaces cause the are less physically demanding than clay.

Tenez, I've given loads of thoughts on Federer. Dont just cherry pick the points you disagree with - I see you dont comment on anything else except the physical angle as usual. Yes Nadal is a physical player - they all are, its a physical sport! Murray and Co are able to last 10+, 20+ ralleys with Nadal. Federer won most of the 10+ ralleys on Sunday. Federer never gets tired against Nadal. Talent is judged in many ways, for example the ability to raise your game on big points. Your constant boiling everything down to physique/physicalness is not only limited in scope and vision but also does the tour players a disservice. These are ALL immensely talented players - but winning matches is the ultimate talent.

boromir

"Roger 'shanky' Federer won his titles in a weak era"

------------------------------------------------------

As Fed won his first in 2001 and his last in 2011 do we assume anyone else who won titles in this period are "weak era" champions ?

Yes Nadal is a physical player - they all are, its a physical sport!
--------------------
But that doesn't mean anything. It's as empty of sense as Boromir's post. Sorry to say. Likewise, they all have talent...even Karlovic. It's all about "more or less"!

Federer knows where Nadal's ball is going to fall. On his BH 5 times out of 6. he could not have an easier counter tactic to work out if itwasn't physical. Melzer or Kholshriber are tougher to work out tactically than Nadal.


Problem with Nadal is that you have no choice but to go for risky shots unless you decide to rally with him and for that Federer needs to be much more physical. This si exactly what Murray and Djoko have done. They all say it, it's documented everywhere, It's the buzz word f tennis at the moment but you are still going on with "tactical know how".

What Annacone may have told Federer is that he stands no chance rallying with those guys.He probably told him "go for your shots, make limited UEs and pray for pulling more winners". But one needs huge talent and confidence for that and no coach can give you talent. He simply needs to have a good day and execute well....converting those key opportunites at set points.

Very simple really.

Annacone knows what he's doing through years of playing the game and coaching and through careful analysis and discussion with Roger has helped him transform and unlock his game.

That's why he was Sampras's then Federer's coach and you're just an armchair warrior in a tennis forum saying that Annacone tells Federer to "pray for more winners". Truly hilarious.

Yes, very simple really.

Tenez wrote:Problem with Nadal is that you have no choice but to go for risky shots unless you decide to rally with him and for that Federer needs to be much more physical. This si exactly what Murray and Djoko have done. They all say it, it's documented everywhere, It's the buzz word f tennis at the moment but you are still going on with "tactical know how"

Its not the "problem with Nadal" - its the problem all other tennis players face.
Tenez, you are like a broken record, all you can talk about is physicality. You're obsessed with it.
That's all your posts ever boil down to - you suck the life out of discussions on here going on about it ALL THE TIME.

Here's an idea for you - why not try talking about something else for a change?
Infact, here's a challenge for you - try not talking about Nadal's physical attributes for a day...
Go on Tenez, I know you can do it - ok, it'll be like cold turkey for a while but you can do it

Lydian...

The issue with Roche was the limited travel requirements. He was born in 1945 (was 55+ in 2001 and 62+ in 2007).

Fed still consults with Higueras, but he wanted a larger influence rather than a single player, hence the choice of USTA.

Annacone as a coach is very much influenced by Fed's relationship with Sampras. Annacone has his detractors (aka the LTA).

I would state Luthi as the steadfast coach/friend. Lundgren, Roche, Higueras were purely professional relationships with no affection. Pure conjecture on my part, but if Carter were alive, Fed would be a much better player. Fed considers Carter to be a godfather. The closest to this type of relationship is Gullikson/Sampras.

Re Rios, a wonderful player, never to win a slam being the only blemish.


Tenez...

re rallying with Nadal is not an issue. Neither is the physicality an issue.

Fed left Rafa stranded many a time in the FO final with his CC BH, and he fought back in the second set. Fed also played shots similar to Rafa with heavy topspin.

Fed's inherent game is built on precision, and beating Djokovic in the SF is testament to it.

You mention Fed's BH weakness, which I disagree with. Fed's SHBH is actually a weapon, because it requires less effort than a DHBH.

For example Murray with a DHBH (one of the best apart from Nalbandian and Djokovic) failed to make a dent at FO, but recall his WTF 2010 SF. I would also say Davy, but he brings the added ability to take the ball early similar to Nalbandian.

More to come....

I agree with Lydian, Annacone has done a very solid job with federer. First of all for the first time since the world tour finals Roger has used the appropriate strategy and tactics for going at Rafa. In the past I used to scream at my tv, "Why does he keep chipping the return". Rafa loves the chipped return, he uses the slower slice as both an opportunity to move into the court and to run around to his forehand and crank and angled spin shot off the court. The chip return works well for big power players who don't move well or who don't feel comfortable being drawn inside the court. But Rafa's movement allowed him to make minced meat of that return, hence why we would see Rafa serve virtually exclusively to Fed's backhand. Second Roger, wouldn't play up the line enough with his backhand to force to break the ryhthmn of cross court forehand v. Fed's backhand. And fed also wouldn't use the drop shot enough or make enough forays at net. Annacone has pushed Roger to play shorter riskier points it worked wonders at the WTF in london, payed dividends to an extent at Madrid and RG, and Roger was just off in Miami and he hit so many errors that he couldn't make the strategy work.

I think a good barometer of how this strategy worked was that while Roger lost to Rafa on clay twice they were both very close matches and at nearly 30 he played Rafa better this year on clay then on many other occassions in his prime. This strategy is risky and Roger won't be able to always pull it off. But on a fast court and on his day he will and can beat Rafa with this high risk, high reward strategy.

I'll respond to the more open minded poster but nonetheless not more knowledgeable.

re rallying with Nadal is not an issue. Neither is the physicality an issue.

You cannot be more wrong. That is the core of the problem when facing Nadal.
I am stunned that all players facing Nadal talk about the physical challenge of playing him, yet you disregard this and talk about absurd strategies. It's exactly like saying Sampras' serve was not the issue when facing Sampras. Would you talk "tatics" for returning his serve? Nadal's game is based on blunting the player’s sharpness and brings the fight to a physical one.
This is why he never lost a 4 setter nor a 5 setter on clay...not even against Coria. This is why the match started with a 52 and set point Federer but lost the fourth 61!!! Same in 2006 and same in 2007.

Fed left Rafa stranded many a time in the FO final with his CC BH, and he fought back in the second set. Fed also played shots similar to Rafa with heavy topspin.

Yes Federer did use at time, rarely though, more loopy shots trying to mix it in...but he knew that was no the way he was going to beat Nadal. He says it in his interview: “Obviously I’m the one that’s playing with smaller margins, so obviously I’m always going to go through a bit more up and downs; whereas Rafa is content doing the one thing for the entire time”. And frankly, Federer hasn’t got the power in his arm to hit heavy topspin balls like Nadal. He can do it once or twice but then will lose his sharpness even quicker if he does it too often.

Fed's inherent game is built on precision, and beating Djokovic in the SF is testament to it.

Well yes. Thanks I knew that. The difference is that Djoko doesn’t keep sending heavy, high bouncing topspin balls on his BH. Djoko’s BH has more pace, less topspin which allows Federer to work on.

You mention Fed's BH weakness, which I disagree with. Fed's SHBH is actually a weapon, because it requires less effort than a DHBH.
For example Murray with a DHBH (one of the best apart from Nalbandian and Djokovic) failed to make a dent at FO, but recall his WTF 2010 SF. I would also say Davy, but he brings the added ability to take the ball early similar to Nalbandian.

Did I mention Federer’s BH being weak? It certainly is again Nadal..only and again because the ball Nadal sends carry more energy (spin) than any other player. Make it less spinny and Federer would have won that final in 3 sets, especially knowing that the ball is going in his BH 5 times out of 6. Yes or no?

And Finally, in his interview, Federer mentions the good advice of Severin first in the rain break and then mentions Paul. The stats do no show that since taking on board Annacone he is beating Nadal more convincingly than before, do they? If anything, it’s the contrary which again makes a mockery of this strategy discussion.

It’s about EXECUTION on the important points…not ridiculous tactics!

And what did Murray say about Nadal?" the key is to be patient!" What does that mean? keep rallying, like Djoko and Murray.

Laverfan - Are you denying that Djoko's improved fitness hasn't played a role in defeating Nadal in teh last 4 encounters? Are you saying that Djoko's last loss to Rafa has nothing to do with Djoko not being fit enough?

Frankly, let's make sure Boromir is teh exception and not the norm here!

Tenez wrote:

I'll respond to the more open minded poster but nonetheless not more knowledgeable.

And you wonder why you are disliked by so many posters. People skills arent your forte. Why dont you try and be courteous?

I am here to talk tennis sense not to be liked talking nonsense.

Tenez wrote:I am here to talk tennis sense not to be liked talking nonsense.

I can honestly say I do like your posts and it is interesting to debate. I know we have disagreed on points, but it is not to say I don't respect your views on tennis.

I just hope others can try to prevent the ill feeling that existed on 606.

Tenez, the biggest improvement in Djokovic's game is not his fitness but his serve. The vast majority of matches Djokovic plays aree 90 minutes, 2 hours, maybe 2 hours and 15 minutes long. In the past fitness did cost him matches but the thing that cost him the most was his erratic and weak serve after he changed his service motion. Last year Djokovic was not even in the top 40 in terms of holding his serve, this year he is in the top 5. Serve and Return are the most important shots, this added dimension has helped him a great deal. Certainly, fitness plays a role but more in 5 set matches in grandslams.

Tenez - PM waiting for you

Thanks LK. Likewise I appreciate reading your posts as I like Laverfan's and Socal to an exted too. You are certainly trying to post in an open and honest fashion. I always felt, and though it is quite subtle, there is an agenda against Federer from Lydian and Tom. They are not wums but anything that can take some credit away from Fed is mentioned. Like here saying Anacone is the brain in Federer's resurgence. Had Federer lost that first set v Djoko and the match, we woudl not be talking about Anacone. What made the difference between the semi and the final? Execution on those very important points...nothing else.

Tenez - PM for you.

LUFC-FEDS-CONTADOR-BWHIZZ wrote:
This is why My tennis lounge is soooo much better because good articles get written all the time!

You are joking? It is the most un-user friendly forum I have come across.

Tenez wrote:
This is why the match started with a 52 and set point Federer but lost the fourth 61!!! Same in 2006 and same in 2007.

Sorry. Fed was serving for the first set at 53 not 52. He did have a missed SP with a drop shot on Rafa's serve.

Yes Federer did use at time, rarely though, more loopy shots trying to mix it in...but he knew that was no the way he was going to beat Nadal. He says it in his interview: “Obviously I’m the one that’s playing with smaller margins, so obviously I’m always going to go through a bit more up and downs; whereas Rafa is content doing the one thing for the entire time”. And frankly, Federer hasn’t got the power in his arm to hit heavy topspin balls like Nadal. He can do it once or twice but then will lose his sharpness even quicker if he does it too often.

The highlighted part is the key. He needs larger margins to work with. Learn from Rafa, how to beat Rafa. Watch how Davy or Nalbandian beat Rafa and learn from it. This does not have to be about power.

Make it less spinny and Federer would have won that final in 3 sets, especially knowing that the ball is going in his BH 5 times out of 6. Yes or no?

Djokovic handled the heavy top spin in the last four matches with Rafa by taking the ball early. Miami was the closest Rafa got to beating Djokovic.

It’s about EXECUTION on the important points…not ridiculous tactics!

Exactly why Rafa wins most of their matches.

legendkillar wrote:LUFC-FEDS-CONTADOR-BWHIZZ wrote:
This is why My tennis lounge is soooo much better because good articles get written all the time!

You are joking? It is the most un-user friendly forum I have come across.

I post on both MTL and 606v2. Different styles, different people and different subjects.

LK...there is one person at the source of discord on these boards. Most people from 606 know full well what Tenez is like. Some turn a blind eye, others like me try to take a stand, others just leave.

My posts are often detailed and knowledgeable (due to my love of the game, not one player) yet I'm just labelled a Nadal hardcore fanatic despite not posting in that style. I even write long balanced pieces quoting external sources, etc, about Federer's coaching history, mental approaches and recent resurgence/successes in detail. And what do we get back from Tenez - accusation of an agenda against Federer. Unbelieveable! Talk about paranoia.

Just what is your problem Tenez? I really dont get it. Your obsession with Nadal vs Federer colours everything you say and you snipe at anyone who doesnt agree with your view on the game, on Nadal's approach to the game, on Federer's approach to the game. You ram your views down people's throats as though they are supreme fact. And people can see it so transparently, and yet you cant.

So, you are accusing me now - where is my agenda against Federer please? Where have I denigrated Federer? Please do tell me because I'm very curious.

Hey lydian,

I do see that Tenez can sometimes go into rather large and long details about Nadal's game and I don't agree with with much what he says about Nadal's game, but I know he has posted on other threads not associated with Federer and Nadal.

I am a pure tennis fan and try to write and post on many generic tennis topics as possible. I feel that under some circumstances a line needs to be drawn sometimes because the admin here have made it clear they won't intervene unless things get to personal issue levels.

I think all parties on this forum need to come to a point where they won't engage discussion knowing what negative comments it made lead to.

I enjoy your posts and comments and wish to see you stay here. Take example this thread which is written with no logic or knowledge and no belief by the OP. Least with Tenez with his posts and comments he does make them with some form of logic and that he understands the points he tries to make.

Thanks LK - yes good how Tenez turned Boromir's nonsense into sense wasnt it...and funny how Boromir has only posted 3 times when holding such deep views. I'm also surprised we havent seen Lucuismann posting today also considering how vocal he was about Nadal yesterday (40 new posts for someone who had been in the forum 1 day).

I like to write across all topics....but sometimes when one person is constantly dragging out a discussion you end up getting involved, or turn the blind eye as I said. Yes Tenez understands the points he's trying to make, and applies them with his own form of logic - and trust me he's held these views for a long time so its a well worn path for him - but IMO his approach is both dogmatic and divisional.

Tenez is a good and valuable poster.
His only "sin" is that he dislikes the style and tactics of Nadal.

This is a tennis forum and he is within his rights to post his thoughts, likes and dislikes.

Regarding Tenez being insulting - from what I can read other posters are just as insulting towards Tenez.

Gentlemen please - back on topic.

This thread is NOT for discussing who and who is not wnted around here

One last thought...interesting that Tenez gets support from another recently joined poster and this is their first post.

Ok Davie...I'm moving on.

Tenez for president, no check that dictator for life.

Well lydian sometimes people don't like Nadal's play and that is their opinion, but I think they should also respect Nadal for his achievements. They may not like his style of play, but there is no formula to his game. I can remember people not liking Sampras's style of play, but it still didn't change from the fact that he was respected for what he contributed to tennis and what he achieved. The Nadal fans respect Federer for what he has done and achieved.

Federer plays the game with grace and flare and Nadal plays with heart and force. I like Nadal's game and Federer's game. I can understand the frustration with Federer fans that he keeps coming up short against Nadal and he has tried different ways of variating his game with more serve and volley or more passive play or more drop shots and he has never been able to find the right combination. It is not like he hasn't had success against Nadal, it is just that Nadal has found ways to defeat Federer without dramatically altering his game. If Federer decided to up his stamina or power in harder hitting it would impact his game dramatically. In all honesty there is nothing that Federer can do without impacting his game. He if anything needs to just tighten up the backhand and maybe play more drops because that did work at the recent FO final and I think when he mixed up his backhand, he looked much closer to defeating Nadal in Paris then in previous years.

socal made a great point ages that Nadal is the typical player that would trouble Federer time and time again.

Davie please can you turn it in about back on topic. Nothing negative is being said and we are trying to build bridges.

Geesh you sound more and more like VMP on 606!

Good points LK. Federer doesnt need to toughen up with power and stamina, he already has both in buckets - when did you ever see him tire in any match?

The problem is that Nadal is able to constantly exploit his weaknesses, and its not just his BH, Nadal can extract errors from his forehand and generally move him around court with his whiplashed 4000rpm forehand shots. Nadal's game is so unique in tennis because of that forehand - its hard for Fed to adopt a strategy that only works against one player nor can he really find it, whereas Nadal's strengths work against everybody. In many respects you sometimes just have to say Nadal is simply too good for Federer...he nearly always finds the way to win now. Since Nadal hit peak from 2008, its 9-2 to Nadal (4-0 in slams).

Thats 6-1 clay, 2-1 hard (Fed won indoor hard), 1-0 grass.

This isnt wind-up language, nor intended to be, its just facts speaking for themselves.

Good analysis lydian, on Federer's new coach, I think with Annacone there's only a few things I'd add.

There's been a definite improvement after taking on Annacone like you said. I'd forgotten how dreadful Federer had got outside the grand slams, although even the RG and Wimbledon were well below par.

I think the real test for Annacone (& Federer) is with Wimbledon, perhaps the US Open too. I think it's a bit unfair (as the thread poster suggests) to say Federer has a problem (problems) until he's played Wimbledon and the US Open, as these are typically his best grand slam tournaments. It's because he did badly last year(given his prior record) that people questioned whether we were witnessing his demise (I'm still undecided to be honest). Even his French Open result was below his usual standard of reaching the final there.

So far, I agree Annacone has been good and I think like most, that until Federer's winning grand slams again, most wont regard Annacone as a great success.

In my mind Annacone has been a big help. I think we saw Annacone's influence in the Djokovic match. Less reliance on the slice backhand especially on the return. A little bit quicker to pull the trigger. A few more up the line backhands to break the pattern of players just going to his backhand all day. I think if Fed plays this style and serve this well at wimbeldon he may be shedding tears of joy at the end of this grandslam.

Lydian

It's a fair point - I think Rafa wears Fed down mentally and emotionally much more than he does physically. Roger's very best play is good enough to beat Rafa's typical level even on clay, but it is such a strain to maintain the standards of hitting accurately and hard to the lines all the time, and I think the frustration of having to play 3 or 4 shots that would be winners against anyone else to win single points against Rafa wears Rog out.

Annacone's coaching does appear to have returned some of the smoothness to Roger's game (didn't see much 'shanking' going on, and the high backhand was working well compared with the last few years), but it still wasn't enough last week to keep Rog ahead (noting that one drop shot being in could have changed the entire complexion of the match).

Just a thought....I wonder how Uncle Tony would coach Federer

lol...probably not very well. Lundgren once said that he always got the impression Federer valued his own opinions more than the coaches so dont think Fed would take too kindly to Uncle T telling him how it is as he probably does to Rafa!

Imagine we wake up tomorrow to the headline:

'Rafa sacks Uncle Toni''

then the next day:

''Roger hires the double team of Annacone and Toni''

Would be absolutely funny. lol.

No joke, Uncle toni is a tennis genius. Switching Rafa to lefty, the huge western grips and the big swings. The guy knew what he was doing and crafted a master plan over ten years with an incredible pupil who could execute what he had up in his head.

socal1976 wrote:No joke, Uncle toni is a tennis genius. Switching Rafa to lefty, the huge western grips and the big swings. The guy knew what he was doing and crafted a master plan over ten years with an incredible pupil who could execute what he had up in his head.

I shudder to think what would 've happened if it hadn't work out as it did.

socal1976 wrote:No joke, Uncle toni is a tennis genius. Switching Rafa to lefty, the huge western grips and the big swings. The guy knew what he was doing and crafted a master plan over ten years with an incredible pupil who could execute what he had up in his head.

Yeah I know nd it's amazing how much control and command he still has over Rafa. If my uncle told me to do my own laundry as a millionairre I'd give him the middle finger lol.

As has been pointed out elsewhere but which I think gets to the heart of Federer's problems is how he crumbles during pressure points with Nadal, I haven't seen this occur with other players quite to the extent with Nadal.

I mean, I was shocked when Federer towards the end of the first set (on Sunday)just crumbled and than imploded, it was painful to watch and it lasted into the second set. Federer got his composure back, but the damage had been done and I had no doubt after that Fed would lose.

Just as an aside, I been reading more, lydian (not that I wasn't reading in the first place, I was but also very carefully now), I think it's easily possible to get carried away (like I did) but I was also hasty in judging you as a hardcore Nadal fan, it felt like that but I've read more posts today and it doesn't come across like that.

As a new poster, I did post a lot, sadly I doubt I can post quite as many as 40, but I have enjoyed reading some good posts today and contributing less is no bad thing, especially if the posts are better and more measured!

Nitb, I am awesome, unlce toni knew what it would take to get Rafa to be what he is today. But in my mind that doesn't take away from Rafa at all, if Rafa wasn't a great natural athlete and couldn't absorb the knowledge then there is no way uncle or not that toni would dedicate his life to this man. imagine how good you have to be to all of sudden switch to playing tennis with your left hand. Rafa's grip on the forehand is so challenging as well and takes a lot of work to master. Semi western is one thing, eastern is on thing but hitting a forehand with such an extreme grip and getting any type of pace on the ball is not easy to do.

Re Uncle Toni, there is a very tight familial link and there is no explicit financial incentive for UT. There is a very nice interview with UT. UT reminds me a lot of Phil Jackson, a US Basketball coach, especially the philosophical aspects of coaching. UT (and the family) has inculcated obedience while Rafa was growing up and being coached. It does sometimes create issues and dependencies (a la the 'coaching' fiasco at W 2010).

Re Fed, I would go one step farther on coaching, Peter Carter had a huge influence on Fed. Peter's loss has always hurt Fed. IMVHO, Marc Rosset may have been a better coach then Lundgren for Fed.

Lundgren (as Lydian points out, held back Fed otherwise Fed should have won more in 2001-2003). I would take Lundgren's words with a grain of salt, lest one forget his episodes during the LTA tenure.

Annacone was also at LTA. Look at the difference (as pointed out here) he has made.

Coach-player relationships (as, someone I respect a lot, on 606v1 pointed out) involved a lot of 'chemistry'. What is good for the goose may not be good for the gander!

For example, imagine UT coaching McEnroe, Safin, Wawrinka (Lundgren's current ward) or Murray, or Tsonga, or Soderling.