Was Tony Roche the reason Federer couldnt beat Nadal on clay?Federer fires him then beats Nadal on clay with a scintilating bagel!

Federer did say he doesnt need a caoch and knows how to win!
What do you think guys?

Hi Dark,
i had my suspicions that Roche wasn't doing much for Fed on clay, but it's hard to be certain! kinda looks as though this was the case. It's gotta be a big boost for fed mentally, It's a brilliant result, i can't quite believe it!

I have for sometime suspected he was a hinderance but it would have looked like a bitter excuse from a whining fan.Federer has now shown us that roche wasnt adding anymore value than he possibly could.

I tell you BT the tears were rolling down my face whilst witnessing this great performance from Federer!

It's probably too early to tell if going from being coached by Tony and being coachless and not having anyone interfere with his game has helped Roger. Perhaps we can stake a judgement on that one depending on how well he plays at RG.

I didn't see the match today. Were his tactics much different with Nadal?

His tactics were vastly different from the last 5 times they played.Surprisingly he was taking the ball early on the backhand added to that a high percentage of First serves with clever net play.He seemed to use his off forearm to devastatingly effect to the Nadal Forearm and it paid divedend.He really kept Nadal guessing with his forearm!It wasnt a perfectly refined tactic but it was one that worked!

It sounds initially then like playing his own game and not Roche's may well have worked.

Was he doing anything much different in the first set ?

He actually was playing Federer tennis of 2005.In the first set he just kept missing and catching the top of the tape.He somewhat erased the missing and was clearing the net better taking his backhand early up the line and opening the court with his off forearm and crosscourt backhand!

Very much Federer of 2005!

Then this bodes well for Fed with RG in mind. Perhaps the greatest timing of getting rid of a coach ever it he pulls it off..... time will tell!

It actually was a full out attack in terms of his tennis.He wasnt jaded nor did he ever let a bounce get to him.Returns were spot on,he was attacking the ball and yes the few slices he did use were effectively deep off both his backhand slice and when stretched off his forearm slice.

This must really do him well and if Tony had any comments with regards to his release then Federer may have just shown he doesnt need Tony.

Well done to Federer,the perfect tonic.Interesting Dark that you mention the off-forehand.Either Federer was obsessed with his backhand or Tony was telling him not to run around it,but I think Federer has not gone for the off-forehand as much for the last 18 months.

Of course his backhand has improved so much in the last two years,but this has blunted him offensively,because he is electric when he runs around the backhand.Perhaps now he has the complete game almost and is coachless,instinct will take over and he will naturally select the off-forehand more, knowing that he can rely on his backhand.

Looks like the mini-slump is over,i'm impressed as he has shown real guts today,and it only adds to his reputation.

Roger has played pretty well without a coach before, and I think that it's really a bit early to tell whether Tony Roche was a hindrance. I'd actually say probably not. I really doubt that Tony would have cosseted his game as their working relationship was always an informal collaboration, and if something that Tony would advise Roger felt wrong for Roger then he probably wouldn't have tried it.

I think that his game probably just clicked today, and he played with a freedom that could be more difficult to do at RG with everyone piling pressure on him about that elusive title. I just hope that he doesn't tighten up and revert back to being a little too timid at RG, because not only is he at his most effective when using his attacking tennis brain, he is also a joy to watch when in full flow :)

Being with Roche or not was a bit irrelevant for Fed.

Very importantly I think, losing the first set was essential. He understood then that he lost the match and acccepting defeat at 15/40 in the 1st game of the second set liberated him of his fear of losing again and started to play more freely and find the rhythm that is so key to his game.

Poor Roche, he had nothing to do with Fed's rhythm (directly anyway). It is like a pianist who is hindered by something in his life and cannot play flawlessly. Roche was not a problem in itself except that Fed did not need him anymore and did not want to hurt him probably. Fed and Roche knew about the tactics to beat Nadal (he had won a few sets against him alrady) but what he needed was the execution and consistency to get over the line.

A federer who finally accepted defeat could do just that.

It's all mental Tenez! ;) (you know why i'm saying this.. ;) )

I totally agree with your statement, question is; how can Roger copy this state of mind at RG? Losing 2 sets on purpose?

I agree with you but i think you keep insisting to much on the mental side,
The reality is much more complex than just one cause. It's a mix of things and sometimes it's impossible to point the thing that start's the change or a diferente capacity. but i admit that the mental has a big part on it, but tactical ability has to do with mental too ;)
If someome his afraid of something he will not be capable of implement a good tactical plan :smash:

Hi GP - I perfectly know why you say this indeed ;) . And though I may contradict myself when I said before that the problem was not psychological, I still do not believe it is. First and foremost, the issue is Nadal's amazing game on clay.

I somewhat disagree here.Roche tome seemed tohave changed Federers playing style not only on clay.Someone said that Roche couldve advise him to hit his backhand rather than run around it and he was doing that,hitting his backhand coz he got into thinking its not a weakness.However in the final.he played instinctive tennis like Federer of 2005.He hit more off forehands than he did backhands and this kept Nadal guessing,regardless of how tired he was.When he seemed to think Federer would go up the line Federer went with the off forearm more for a winner or put Nadal so far behind and drew the error.Same with when Nadal thought he would go for the off,he went for the line and was the winner.

Federer whilst with Roche hit more crosscourt forearms.I even seem to think that he lost hitting down the line for a while.To me he lost the first set yesterday because he started playing a game that he had lost and thats his instinctive game.The first set was a fine tuning session.I still dont think he refined it enough but at RG expect to see him devastate the opposition with his natural game!

But Darky, my friend, Fed won other sets convincingly and would have won other sets and matches convincingly on clay, had he been able to convert key BPs, or even double BPs. This time however, he kept his cool and finally converted those BPs while growing confidence on his serve. Confidence grew as opposed to previous matches where his confidence deteriorated as the match went on.

Roche had certainly become a problem but not for his tactics specifically but because Fed had nothing else to learn from the old man and had to send him back home. Fed played very instinctively at the AO, Roche or not Roche is NOT the question. ;)

roflmao dont be mean!For me as a Federer fan,I could actually see the difference in his game.Also if you look at his comments,I dont need a coach,I know how to win.I think Roche was giving him advise that he didnt quite like!

Confidence is another issue and I cant blame Roche for his lack of conviction in all the other matches!

I do believe that Roche was clearly a hindrance for Lendl at Wimbledon. That Lendl did not realise at the time, is beyond me. :doh: . He certainly had to get rid of him anyway.

Lendle believed that he had to play serve and volley to win Wimbledon which back in the day was the way to go on grass.He never went with his natural game and I believe that is why he lost 2 finals.
Roche I believe tried to change Rogers game I genuinely dont think that he was a hinderance but kinda a liability in some aspects!

Obviously, the question is hopeless at the moment, it is too early to tell - but I think Tony and Roger were beginning to disagree about things and it was affecting rogers game and his confidence. Perhaps the handcuffs were off him and he just went for it!

That is one huge hammer blow for Nadal before the French Open - Federer now knows he can beat him on clay, and so does Rafa!

I guess we still don't know what happens when a unchained, empty headed Roger will face a not so tired Nadal, on clay that is

We don't know you are right...but if Roger can take Nadal to the 5th set, my money woudl be on Roger. Nadal is almost like a heavyweight boxer.....the more it goes, the more his punches lose weight (less top spin on the ball).

Agreed coz it was apparent in his 2 styles of play with Roche and yesterday without him!

This is also true but he somehow finds ways to stay in there and this tends to irratate Federer and he goes for more and misses.I just hope we can witness a free hitting Federere with nothing to lose be it for 4 sets or 5.

Now you really get me excited T, Roger to win RG in 5 sets against Rafa.
To continue your parallel with boxing; that would equal the best sports moment ever; Ali beats Foreman :bow:

Yep...except that I was for Foreman.... ;)

hmm, i thought you were a connoisseur ;)

You do know guys that they both have to get to the final first and we all have seen Federer can lose to stupid people.But I think in a slam its different for him and he will step it up.

i think the other thing that probably helped Roger yesterday, apart from any effect from sacking Roche, was that he has taken quite a bashing in the press this last week, and he was (no matter what Nadal says) a fairly clear underdog for yesterdays match - if Fed is underdog then he is always massively dangerous!

I feel Foreman was actually the Federer of the time.....explosive but could not finish Ali like Fed could not finish Nadal in Rome or at the French.

But yes,,,in my above post, it would be the other way around.

Anyway..I am not a boxing connoisseur but was a fan of Tyson.

Nah, Foreman was the aimless Bludgeon to Ali's grace - Nadal = Foreman, Ali = Federer

I also think that he was tired of being embarassed at the hands of Nadal making him look so ordinary when he knew he was the better player.
You know the article after he won said "Federer looked to be in line for his USUAL humbling on the dirt"...I mean comments like that would get under anyones skin!

absolutely!

"float like a butterfly, sting like a bee"

Yep that sums up Fed's stye in a nutshell. :bow:

The other thing is that Tony Roche's role seemed to be more as "adviser" than coach...

What sort of advisor was he id Federer never listened?

This from the article that petalp posted.Like I said,he ran around that backhand and kept Nadal guessing with his forehand!

Well he did listen DN, and obviously it worked quite well wehn they first started out - Roche has probably made Federer's best game better, but perhaps he was trying to force things on him, and became more of a "coach" than an "adviser"

I can accept that Federer did listen and to a certain extent he did improve Federers game but I also have to say that he also took Federers natural game away in making him aware of certain aspects of what he needs to do to combat Nadal.In doing that he he robbed Federer of what is the most atural talent any sportsman has and thats instict.Our instincts are an importatnt key to our very lives,be it in sport or personal life.Federer doubted his instincts and wound up in a mess against not only Nadal but in that slump.He played very instinctive yesterday,I suppose thats why he did win 3 slams in the beginning without one,his instinct was his coach!

Don't you think DN it is harder to run around your BH and execute a FH winner when the shots are longer with a higher bounce?

It was easier for Fed to run around his BH cause the shots were shorter, the bounce lower. Same applied to his returns, they were much better than in MC because again the quality Nadal's serve was different.