Today Federer made a mistake he shouldn’t have and therefore he deserved to lose.
The second and third set were very much alike the first set from the match they played in Shanghai during the YEC 2006. Fed was outpaced back then by Nalby from the baseline like he was more often in the past. But as soon as Roger slowed things down (BH slice, FH topspin) and started to play more varied the tables turned. He should have done this today after the break in the second, or preferbably at the start of the second.
Why oh why did Roger persevere in playing the fast paced Nalby game? Clearly he misjudged the situation after winning the first set, in btw; a rather flattering way (I consider it all went too "easy" for Rog’s own good). Was he underestimating Nalby? Was he too confident? After the match he said he had problems with playing aggressive for some reason, this seems like he didn’t read the match very well because his attempts to play aggressive seemed to be the key of his loss today, so why did he keep on trying? He hit countless forehands long after all. Nobody’s outpacing Nalbandian being on fire, Roger should have known that.

Nalby played a great match; served better than I’ve ever seen him serving before, played smart and brave too! Instead of going to Fed’s backhand he wasn’t afraid to challenge Fed’s forehand, Fed reacted like a raging bull on a red cape, without catching the matador (Nalby :huh: )

I’m a bit moody about the result as I felt this was arguably his best –at least most consistant- tourney of the year.

Hi GP, I agree - I had the feeling Fed didn't stick to his gameplan after the first set went by so fast. And, tbh, Nalbandian played fantastic tennis in the second (and the third as well); he really served his way out of trouble like Roger often does. Maybe it's where not having a coach is starting to show? :shrug:

In your last sentence, did you mean to include the AO?

Hi MJT, I agree winning a slam with a clean sheet is really something. But i remember Roger played rubbish against Robredo at the AO, the final wasn't that good either.
In Madrid he didn't have to face the very best players out there, nevertheless he was up till the final in total control, no breaks of serve and his BH was just incredible all week. I really had the feeling we were witnessing the Federer of the indoor season 2006 again.

Coach or no coach, i reckon watching the replays of the YEC round robin 2006 and yesterdays final should give Roger some clues

The problem in my view, like in 90% matches, is pace. Nalbandian can produce pace and angles that can force mistakes and destroy the opponent's confidence. Players can either handle the pace or not. In a good day Federer can but if not at his very best against Nalbandian - and this has been proven time and time again - he'll struggle.

But this confirms again the supriority of the dhbh over the single one. Of course Federer could win with his one handed BH but having seen some shorts now, it was clear that Bh to BH the pace coming from Nalby's side did do most of the damage.

I think that the backhand exchanges highlighted that at his best, Nalbandian still has one of the best backhands in the game and it is enough to beat Fed. I'm not sure DH backhands are now undisputably better than SHBHs. The sheer number of players that learn the DHBH means that there will be more of them at the top, but many of the greatest players ever have been single-handed and proportionate to how many players learn the game with a SHBH, they still do pretty well.
With the popularity of Federer, more kids want to learn the single-hander, so in 10 years, there will probably be a whole lot more players in the top 100 with SHBHs. :)

Hi TM - It s true that the greatest players (besides Borg) have been one hbh. and I think the reason is one needs talent (great timing) to have one, hence the great players coudl afford to be single hbh. Even today, those who have like Haas, Gasquet, Gonzo, Blake are hugely talented players and they still can get away with it. But none of those players achieve consistently on the tour. With Nalby, Davydenko, Nadal and Djoko, the game is clearly now taking a turn. and only Federer was able to dominate them.

If we look at the 16th round in Madrid, only 3 players out of teh 16 had a shbh. I hope we will have more of those in the future but as the pace of the game goes up, the less likely it is going to be.

oh no, not that BH debate again :banghead: ;)

Seriously; apart from Nalby's serve and form overall, it was Rogers FH that failed, caused by nalby's outrageously paced groundstrokes. Fed shouldn't have measured his pace with Nalby's pace like i posted before.
It seemed like he wanted to prove something, which cost him in the end
What do you do when it's getting more clear by the rally you can't handle the pace? Temporize! Something Fed's usually very good at. Yesterday he forgot (or didn't wanted) to do that

3 out of 16 is a higher proportion than the number of kids that learn a SHBH....

This is true when playing a one dimensional player who is not so good at coming to the net or with shorter balls.

Nalby, when in the zone, can do anything when faced with sliced, slow or short balls. I think Federer had no choice trying to oupace him or simply trying to be more patient. What allowed Federer to win Nalby in the past, was to stay in the rally as long as possible and pick up his attacks only when he could and force Nalby first into mistakes.

Nalby simply played too well...and yes Fed's BH will be an issue more and more sorry.... :P

I rest my case! :huh:

Hmmm, whether to fight my corner or not.....
Think I'll stick to agreeing with greasepipe about playing Nalbandian. As you said, Nalbandian ON FORM can cope well with variety, but Federer helped to play him into form by going toe to toe. :P

Good point: As I said this morning I saw the match live and I was really surprise about FED not trying to change the game plan at the beginning of the third: I was expecting him moving forward and short the exchange or at least try..

But I really believe he was literally shared by the quality of the return game of Nalbi as well as the serve of Nalbi in the last set: this set was a one way story..

What else coudl he do really? Serve and volley? Drag Nalby to the net? (he did a few times and got badly punished according to some replay I saw).

Yes try that..I know it is simple to say than to do (we are all masters he on the Boards right ;-) )..Yes I would like him to take more risks on the volley side instead of staying back ..But once again, it was difficult..It was difficult as well because he was Nalbi on the other side of the net: FED has an history against this guy and he lost to him quite a lot in the past..So mentally he should be very difficult out there..Nevertheless more mix up would have been good..More move forwards..He did not mainly because Nalbi did not allow him agree but still and the end I had the bad feeling he was not trying anymore (i.e. his last service game which offered the victory to Nalbi) :rolleyes:

I think we should simply accept that Fed can lose by a better player on the day. Another day, Fed will feel more confident, his shots will have more depth and weight, his BH will be deadly and he will win. Yesterday wasn't the case but SVing against Nalby would have been suicidal imo.

Agree Tenez..But stay back as he did in the third was also a suicide approach..I do not know..But, once said that, a different strategy can always generate a surprise factor and obliged your opponent to doubt of his game plan..Anyway only hypothesises..we need to accept he can and will lose time to time..Fully agree..Human is and human will be like all of us.. :rolleyes:

I agree that Federer is now more prone to losing to some players when they have a good day. I think that he is also probably more prone to having a bad day against a couple of players that have a mental edge over him - Nadal and Nalbi spring to mind and Canas obviously rattled him in their first meeting this year. His air of invincibility seems to drop against these guys (and Djoko might benefit from this over the next 12 months) and I believe that it may be a confidence thing. This is one area in which a coach actually may offer something to Fed. :shrug:

Fully agree as well..Take a coach FED please do it :bow: :bow: : He will help you..Let's hope he will do that soon

I'm afraid i will have to repeat myself T, the BH wasn't the problem, in fact; it was the best part of his game yesterday.
With 6-1 up and his ability to adept when needed he should have closed the match. Instead of that he made a tactical error by consistantly going for the lines with his FH in a furious manner. Specially in the third.

OTOH; i won't be surprised if this is a certain choice he made, it's been for some time now he's playing the MS's way more aggressivly than the Slams

Once again greasepipe, this is due (i.e. this excessive aggressive attitude) IMO to his search of a new way of playing: Low Energy/ Better plan B..IMO: He is really in a searching phase for a longevity formula and he is using out of GS events to do that: This is why a coach with him it is so important. He could help him in creating this new "FED" for the rest of his career.. :rolleyes:

I'm either going to sink or swim with this ... but wouldn't it be better for him to get something like a sports psychologist instead... I think this is more a head issue... cause obviously he has proven over the years that he has the game. I sometimes think he would do well regardless of whatever profession he chooses.. he is an achiever and a consistent one at that... Yet still, I thiink he does struggle with authority when it doesn't yield the immediate desire results..his hidden temperament..

But most of the people he loses to are actually not bad players either..they are usually feeling the mental need to excel better than Fed, during their encounters. Roger is at the top...and it does get lonely so you think a bit more...but it is so...and certainly holding on to the top spot and longevity all take a toll. I would say someone who can keep him motivated to keep winning thats what is more important...cause driving for records in itself, in a sport like tennis can be frustrating..its not like a
100 metre sprint where the record itself is a part of the goals...

Anyway...the only drawback is not the kind of help ..that makes him see the glass half full all the time.... cause yeah.....sometimes the glass is half empty and you ought to sit up and take note..

I love the panic that ensues with the Fed fans when he loses! As if this happens regulary roflmao

By all accounts, it seems Nalby had a glorious afternoon of ballstriking that was too good for Federer. I think this is all that is needed.

I agree from what i hear. I am not a Nalby fan, but on a day when everything comes togther he can beat Federer and has done. And Fed won't be 100% on every match. It's good that we can still have 'upsets" like this I think. :ok:

I have personally yet to see real, tangible benefits of having a coach...especially in Federer's case where not many people out there have ever been in his position before. Some talk about having someone to motivate him...other advise him on tactics and maybe techniques...But I am not convinced.

First Federer knows about tennis, knows about different styles, knows about changing tactics during the course of a match and knows above all that the motivation, like for all champions, comes from within and certainly not because mum, dad or coach tell him to be motivated.

Then, he is in a unique position that is to become the greatest player of all time while being probably the most talented player of all time. What can Connors, Roche, Gilbert, Stephanski or else can teach him that he doesn't know? We can see the limited influence that a multi slams champion like Connors can have when his "horse" is facing Federer....not much. In fact Roddick’s greatest humiliation came at the last AO after about a year of having Connors as a coach. Same applies to Federer, he won and lost versus Nalbandian having or without having coaches. This year again, he won 2 GS (and we could say 3 if counting the little influence of Roche in the AO) ....without having a coach. If the ball is coming back fast with crazy angles, what can a coach do about it? Connors could not do anything when ARod faced Fed in that AO semi. Could Roche help Fed win the French when the ball from Nadal came back on his BH spining and jumping like mad? I don't think so. Certainly in the case of a Gonzo, or Safin having someone trying to temper the game can be helpful but even there we can see the limitations those coaches have.

What I like with Federer is that is already ahead of them and if he thought he could get some extra help he would and though he probably will at some stage, I agree that currently there is no urgency because out there ....not many can actually help him. Many however could raise doubts in his mind and cause more damage than help. We saw what happened last Spring.

Federer, again, knows that the best coaches are actually those young players out there trying to develop the future weapons to beat those currently at the top. This is where the real creativity and solutions lie. Inviting those young players during his holidays and training with them is a very smart move from roger. They are the future champions like Djoko and Nadal are becoming now. Gulbis progress are certainly not escaping Fed's attention and he has certainly already watched a few tapes or matches about him and his peers. That is where the new material resides that could give him some solutions for the immediate future. He is after all an artist of the game and needs inspiration by other artists, not those old players whose key to their game was unveiled long ago.

Long live the king of tennis.

Tenez, are you trying to stir up a debate here on the usefulness of coaches? If not, I think that you may underestimate what coaches can do for players. With all top players, there comes a point when they outgrow the playing standard of their coach, but it doesn't mean that the coach can't teach them anything. Roche was with Lendl for a long time. Just because Federer is sublimely talented, do you think that insights into the way Lendl approached matches against nemeses would not help Federer to prepare for Nadal?
A lot of coaches at the highest level assist with fitness training and psychological wellbeing as well as the technical and tactical parts. Technically, Federer knows now what he needs to do, but if his backhand is not firing, he may not know why. A coach can keep an eye on things and suggest that he is stepping too far across on his backhand and getting less leg drive (for example) and set up drills and practice sessions to correct.
A large part of a coach's role is to analyse play, so when watching tapes of other players, a coach may have a better trained eye (plus much more experience) in looking for weaknesses or technical deficiencies that will break down under pressure. Fed would be able to do this to an extent, but he can't spend all his time watching tapes. A coach can do this while Fed is at ad shoots for Gillette. :P
I personally think that one of the reasons Fed has been so successful without a coach is because he has Mirka. She can manage his affairs and keep him focused on the tennis, but as a fellow player, Fed could run things past her, ask for views on other players, get some specific feedback on his tennis from somebody that knows their stuff. She may not be a Stefanki or Roche, but she probably knows how to deal with Roger and how to get messages across on how to play, what might need some work etc.
Just because he is the best player in the world doesn't mean that he can't improve. Look at Tiger Woods, who reconstructed his swing when he was winning majors at will. It took a while, but he came back with more consistency and a swing that should ensure greater longevity in the game. And a coach helped him do it. :whistle: