Roche's additions to Federer's game [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roche's additions to Federer's game

World Beater
11-20-2005, 06:50 PM
Hey, i thought it would be cool to see the evolution of federer's game. Fed has a lot of respect for roche, and he says is having an impact. But what specifically?

In this thread, post either strategic, technical, stylistic or even behavioral changes that you have noticed. Roger says a few subtle things have changed in his game. We as perceptive roger fans, try to pick it up!

You can also post what types of things you would hope they work on, in the coming year.

LCeh
11-20-2005, 07:01 PM
Definitely his forehand volley and his second serve. Those 2 can improve the most. Then comes the backhand. More consistency and pace would be great. Other than those his game is pretty good as it is.

...

LOL what am I talking about, of course his game is pretty good as it is. Anybody would love to be able to play like him. But yea, at the moment, I think his second serve and his forehand volley can improve the most.

World Beater
11-21-2005, 01:37 AM
i have some recent concerns abt feds game
first his serve:

speed has significantly decreased since his wimbledon win...he wasnt serving hard in cincy and is struggling to get it in the high 120's

Davydenko serving harder than federer...then we know there is a problem

Fed's lazy technique when volleying...he sometimes rushes into net, and instead of stopping and blocking runs his volleys over. Roche, are you doing you job??? i dont see too much improvement in volleying

Fed volleyed beautifully in 2003 when he won wimby under PL.

He served great against agassi at the AO. Contrast that to the rest of the year.

He won cincy and usopen on pure toughness

World Beater
11-21-2005, 01:38 AM
fed needs a fh squash shot on clay

the_natural
11-21-2005, 01:54 AM
Well he was out for a while. And anyway he used to be more of a serve volleyer in the past now hes changed to a baseliner to go with the times, thats why the volleys arent as great as before, Serve volleyer is harder than Baseliner. Under Roche he seems to be trying to get to the net a bit more to get his volleys up to scratch though... Peter Lundreng (sp!?) Is a highly underatted and quick spectacular coach, he was the reason Rog learnt how to control his mental game and not swear and stuff etc if he made a mistake, hes doin the Same with Safin but Safins a bit tougher to tame especially since he's older than Federer was, but Still Peter improved them both more than anyone will give credit.

World Beater
11-21-2005, 02:06 AM
i will cut fed some slack for the injury he suffered...but should be responsible for playing some tennis or at least keeping himself sharp when he took the break after wimby

LCeh
11-21-2005, 02:13 AM
I think his speed and serve is just due to a lack of conditioning. I am pretty sure that if nothing goes wrong, he should be moving and serving like he is capable of again at AO 06.

The major improvements he can make imo is his second serve and his volleys, especially his forehand side. A more solid backhand doesn't hurt either, but those are the main ones. One can rarely use a fh squash shot anyhow, so it's not really a big concern even if he doesn't get that perfected.

etiage
11-21-2005, 08:00 AM
volleys running through them and seems to be volleying uncrisp balls right back to opponents a lot

bh too defensive sometimes, and most of the time against power hitters. he's developed the nice cc hb, but i would also like to see some of the great bh he used against agassi in 2003 tmc.

ExpectedWinner
11-21-2005, 03:02 PM
And anyway he used to be more of a serve volleyer in the past now hes changed to a baseliner to go with the times, thats why the volleys arent as great as before, Serve volleyer is harder than Baseliner.

I wouldn't say that S&V game is harder/easier than baseline game, it's just different. S&V game is based on quick reaction, instincts, reflexes. A good S&V-er plays this " north-south" game automatically, with very little thinking and minimum strategy.

I agree that Roger has neglected his net game lately. Early in his career he s&v a lot against Hewitt and Nalbandian, and it didn't work. Then he found a way to beat them from bs, and he's been glued to the back of the court since.

ExpectedWinner
11-21-2005, 03:17 PM
Roche doesn't have enough time to do his job. This arrangment seems more and more ridiculous. I was very disappointed to find out that they won't meet till Kyoong; it's awfully close to the AO.

Federerthebest
11-21-2005, 03:26 PM
Roche is the most brilliant tennis coach in the world. The way he turned Pat Rafter around from a journeyman languishing outside the top-50 to the number-one player in the world was amazing. However, I'm not sure that he has brought a great deal to Federer's game. I've seen no marked improvements in Federer's serve and whilst Federer does seem to be attacking the net more aggressively, the volleys are still not as clean as they were in his 2003 Wimbledon triumph. I think Federer needs a new coach, one who is prepared to travel with him full-time, not a coach who only works part-time, brilliant though that coach may be.

ExpectedWinner
11-21-2005, 03:33 PM
If my sclerosis serves me correctly, lol, Roche did not travel with Rafter full time either.

Federerthebest
11-21-2005, 03:37 PM
If my sclerosis serves me correctly, lol, Roche did not travel with Rafter either.

Really? I was sure traveled with Rafter full-time...

Puschkin
11-21-2005, 04:22 PM
I think Federer needs a new coach, one who is prepared to travel with him full-time, not a coach who only works part-time, brilliant though that coach may be.

Tell Agassi to retire ;) , then Cahill would be free. Seriously: I am generally not sure about the coaches' contributions at all :confused: .

nobama
11-21-2005, 07:36 PM
Perhaps it's Roger's decision not to have a full time coach? :shrug: I guess we can debate whether that's smart or not. But when the guy goes 81-4 and wins 11 titles it's kinda hard to criticize his decisions. He's obviously doing something right. :lol:

World Beater
11-22-2005, 03:44 AM
Roche doesn't have enough time to do his job. This arrangment seems more and more ridiculous. I was very disappointed to find out that they won't meet till Kyoong; it's awfully close to the AO.

yes seeing as how most players improve during this time...it is surprising...it is tough to improve during the season.

World Beater
11-22-2005, 03:48 AM
Perhaps it's Roger's decision not to have a full time coach? :shrug: I guess we can debate whether that's smart or not. But when the guy goes 81-4 and wins 11 titles it's kinda hard to criticize his decisions. He's obviously doing something right. :lol:

nobody is debating roger's greatness. The issue is whether Roche was in any way responsible for roger's improved record.

We dont see to many improvements in the actual game, but he is much more mentally tough these days, which is the improved record.


I would like to see roger hit his bh return a little more aggresively, put some pressure.

I was surprised to see that roger did not chip and charge much on an indoor court. perhaps too much respect for nalby

SUKTUEN
11-24-2005, 04:22 PM
who?

nobama
11-28-2005, 07:03 PM
I'm not sure what I think about this arrangement....I don't think Roger and Rochey spend enough time together. My guess is after AO he probably won't be with Roger again until Hamburg or FO. As great as Roger is, I still think he needs more of a full-time coach. Heck, even Tiger Woods has one.

http://www.theadvertiser.news.com.au/common/story_page/0,5936,17396871%255E12428,00.html

Federer still one to beat
By PAUL MALONE
29nov05
ROGER Federer's streak-ending loss in the Masters Cup stemmed from injury rather than a new vulnerability which rivals can hope to attack at the Australian Open.

That was the verdict from Federer's coaching consultant, Tony Roche, yesterday while the Swiss champion enjoys his off-season break before preparing for his Australian appearances in January.

Federer had won his past 24 finals and 35 straight matches prior to his Masters Cup final loss to David Nalbandian in Shanghai last Sunday week, coming after a lengthy recovery from an ankle injury. It was only his fourth loss of the year.

"He was on crutches for six weeks leading into the Masters Cup and it caught him out in the end," Roche said in Brisbane.

"He very nearly didn't play and his ankle was still pretty swollen on the day of the final. He was just short of a gallop."

Roche said he would be working with Federer during his visit to Australia, where he will play the AAMI Classic at Kooyong before bidding for a second title at the Australian Open, where he lost in the semi-finals to eventual winner Marat Safin in 2005.

John McEnroe said last week at a promotion for his Champions Tour series that players will try harder in matches against Federer in light of Nalbandian's win from two sets down.

"He looked like a human being for once rather than the greatest player that ever lived," McEnroe said. "He might have done himself some damage by playing. Even if he's healthy people are going to start digging deeper to play against him. People will do different things to start bridging the gap."

Roche will not travel overseas to Federer's training camp to prepare for his Australian events, something he did in late 2004.

The Sydney coach's love of tennis is such that he went from coaching the world's top player one weekend to working with 40 Queensland juniors the next. The former mentor of Ivan Lendl and Pat Rafter, among others, was in Brisbane to work at Tennis Queensland's Stanwell elite player camp at the University of Queensland for the state's players between the ages of 11 and 14.

"It's good to see these kids all keen and they have some talent here," Roche said. "No question the overall standard has risen and it's important we keep up with the times because this game is changing all the time."

MissMoJo
11-28-2005, 08:04 PM
"He very nearly didn't play and his ankle was still pretty swollen on the day of the final. He was just short of a gallop."
Ouch. oh roger...

ExpectedWinner
11-29-2005, 05:38 AM
"He very nearly didn't play and his ankle was still pretty swollen on the day of the final. He was just short of a gallop."
"

Damn it. So much for looking at the big picture. :mad:

nobama
11-29-2005, 11:38 AM
Damn it. So much for looking at the big picture. :mad:I'm sure he'll be fine....he's on a long holiday now and says he's going to start training mid-December. So he'll have had several weeks to let the ankle heal. But reading that amazes me even more that he was able to hang with Nalby as long as he did in the finals...and come within 2 points of winning.

SUKTUEN
11-29-2005, 02:51 PM
John always bust shit :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

Minnie
11-30-2005, 12:14 AM
Having torn an ankle ligament myself, I'm not at all surprised that his ankle was swelling during that tournament with all the pressure he was putting on it. I admire him tremendously for playing, but am still not sure if it was the right thing to do in the circs.

TenHound
11-30-2005, 03:12 AM
I also am disappointed that he's not spending a few wks. in off season w/Tony. But he can't -remember I posted that Roche hired on to help the Indian kid w/her serve in Dec. Goddamnit.

I think the Biggest Thing Roche gives Roger is confidence. Tony is the Voice of God. That's worth it's weight in Gold. And remember that clever maneuver he pulled to get Roger prepared for Wimby final, when his feet were not good, so he had reason for concern. He arranged for some of his Sporting Heroes to show up in Locker Room shortly before the match, so Roger trotted out on Center Court utterly relaxed; unlike AR, who was a nervous wreck?

the_natural
11-30-2005, 06:27 AM
I wouldn't say that S&V game is harder/easier than baseline game, it's just different. S&V game is based on quick reaction, instincts, reflexes. A good S&V-er plays this " north-south" game automatically, with very little thinking and minimum strategy.

I agree that Roger has neglected his net game lately. Early in his career he s&v a lot against Hewitt and Nalbandian, and it didn't work. Then he found a way to beat them from bs, and he's been glued to the back of the court since.

Well then u dont know anything about tennis, SV isnt some stupid brutes game U know nothing. Its much harder than baselining, u cant just run to the net, u have to construct the point very well to get ur self in to the net and then finish the rally within two strikes or risk losing the point, u expose urself and are made Vulnerable. Baselining is much easier which is why there have never been serve volleyers on the Juniour tour, its extremely hard, tere isnt minimum thinking and Strategy loser, go learn something about tennis before you make your bull$hit comments you noob

ExpectedWinner
11-30-2005, 07:59 AM
Well then u dont know anything about tennis, SV isnt some stupid brutes game U know nothing. Its much harder than baselining, u cant just run to the net, u have to construct the point very well to get ur self in to the net and then finish the rally within two strikes or risk losing the point, u expose urself and are made Vulnerable. Baselining is much easier which is why there have never been serve volleyers on the Juniour tour, its extremely hard, tere isnt minimum thinking and Strategy loser, go learn something about tennis before you make your bull$hit comments you noob

???

Where did I say that s&v is a stupid brand of game? Read old interviews of Pete Sampras. He used to say that on a good day he played automatically, not thinking too much( being compared to a machine is actually a compliment for a s@v). Players who rally and then find the way to the net are not pure s&V. Pure s$v rely on a big and/or very well placed first serve, get a short return and finish with a volley. They do rally a little more on a second serve.

Now, the strategy part. Notorious s&V are comitted to come to the net no matter who they play. They are prepared to be passed and lose some points at the net. If an opponent can do it all day long, then it's too good. That's what I meant under a " little strategy" thing. I did not say thay s&v do not construct points. They have to place their serves and volleys very carefully and choose the right timing for approach shots. But baseline "constructing" requires more of a chess mind, imo. In a long rally you have to plan your shots 2-3 steps ahead, and no rally is the same.


You are right that juniors don't play s@v anymore. New racket technology, relatively slow courts, improved returning skills are a few things to blame. The typical junior practice looks like this: 45min-1hr at the bs, 30 min serving, 10-15 min at the net. It's simply not enough.

I still don't agree that S@V game is harder/easier. It depends on a player. For example, Karlovic/Mirnyi have problems with long rallies, and for Puerta s&v is a rocket science. The hardest thing is to become a complete player with equally good bs/net skills.

nobama
11-30-2005, 12:00 PM
I think the Biggest Thing Roche gives Roger is confidence. Tony is the Voice of God. That's worth it's weight in Gold. And remember that clever maneuver he pulled to get Roger prepared for Wimby final, when his feet were not good, so he had reason for concern. He arranged for some of his Sporting Heroes to show up in Locker Room shortly before the match, so Roger trotted out on Center Court utterly relaxed; unlike AR, who was a nervous wreck?I think Tony is great to have around, but I'd like it if Roger had more of his time. But Roger seems content only training with him a few times a year. Yeah and what he did before the Wimby final was brill. I remember when both players walked out on court, Roger wasn't wearing a jacket or anything, and Andy had his jacket on, zipped up all the way. He looked nervous as hell and Roger looked more calm (on the outside at least).

Federerthebest
12-02-2005, 07:57 AM
Australian tennis also desperately needs Roche's expertise. This is anothe reason why I would like to see Federer to get a new coach, so Roche can devote more of his time to training Australian juniors. Roche has had a hand in the development of almost every Australian player for the last fifteen years.

SUKTUEN
12-03-2005, 09:16 AM
I love Sampras more than John

the_natural
12-06-2005, 03:17 AM
???

Where did I say that s&v is a stupid brand of game? Read old interviews of Pete Sampras. He used to say that on a good day he played automatically, not thinking too much( being compared to a machine is actually a compliment for a s@v). Players who rally and then find the way to the net are not pure s&V. Pure s$v rely on a big and/or very well placed first serve, get a short return and finish with a volley. They do rally a little more on a second serve.

Now, the strategy part. Notorious s&V are comitted to come to the net no matter who they play. They are prepared to be passed and lose some points at the net. If an opponent can do it all day long, then it's too good. That's what I meant under a " little strategy" thing. I did not say thay s&v do not construct points. They have to place their serves and volleys very carefully and choose the right timing for approach shots. But baseline "constructing" requires more of a chess mind, imo. In a long rally you have to plan your shots 2-3 steps ahead, and no rally is the same.


You are right that juniors don't play s@v anymore. New racket technology, relatively slow courts, improved returning skills are a few things to blame. The typical junior practice looks like this: 45min-1hr at the bs, 30 min serving, 10-15 min at the net. It's simply not enough.

I still don't agree that S@V game is harder/easier. It depends on a player. For example, Karlovic/Mirnyi have problems with long rallies, and for Puerta s&v is a rocket science. The hardest thing is to become a complete player with equally good bs/net skills.


Its harder in terms of the physical demands it places on a player, more explosive movements, the dash to the net alone takes alot and is like a long baseline rally except for the fact that if u are passed it all starts over again. You need a stronger and shoulders too. Serve Volleyers burn out much quicker, good ones at least, who win alot and have to play alot, because Baseliners can stay back and not move much and still win the point, it doesnt happen all the time but its the reason Agassi still plays and wins, if he were a SV then he would be long since retired by now.

ExpectedWinner
12-12-2005, 03:32 PM
Its harder in terms of the physical demands it places on a player, more explosive movements, the dash to the net alone takes alot and is like a long baseline rally except for the fact that if u are passed it all starts over again. You need a stronger and shoulders too. Serve Volleyers burn out much quicker, good ones at least, who win alot and have to play alot, because Baseliners can stay back and not move much and still win the point, it doesnt happen all the time but its the reason Agassi still plays and wins, if he were a SV then he would be long since retired by now.

Well, tennis players usually slow down around 30. I'm sure you know that Agassi is an exception. There are a few most common reasons for injures/physical exhaustion-

- overuse/overplaying
- poor technique
- bad training and lifestyle habits
- bad luck :shrug:

There are enough baseline players who endure(d) a lot of injures at the young age (some of them caused an early retirement). The most notable recent cases are Rios, Guga, Norman, Coria, Safin.

SUKTUEN
12-13-2005, 03:12 PM
tennis players usually slow down around 30 always because all human's body will slow down start 30

Eden
10-14-2006, 11:36 PM
I don't know if you have seen the thread on GM with the discussion that Tony Roche won't be the right coach for Roger to win Roland Garros :o

http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=87671

SUKTUEN
10-15-2006, 10:32 AM
I think Roger trust Tony Roche

AsianSensation
10-15-2006, 04:49 PM
fed needs a fh squash shot on clay

Nalbandian would say that definitely happened :devil:

SUKTUEN
10-16-2006, 05:24 PM
...............

Eden
10-17-2006, 10:10 PM
I think Roger trust Tony Roche

Yes, indeed. Both seem to get along really well on and off the court :)

SUKTUEN
10-18-2006, 06:51 PM
yes