Roche won't bring Federer closer to French Open [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Roche won't bring Federer closer to French Open

champlingo
10-07-2006, 09:35 PM
Let's face it, Roche failed where it mattered most in his coaching: Lendl with a Wimby. Rafter without Wimby. Federer without French. Fed should dump Roche and get a coach who could get him that GS.

Eden
10-07-2006, 09:39 PM
Let's face it, Roche failed where it mattered most in his coaching: Lendl with a Wimby. Rafter without Wimby. Federer without French. Fed should dump Roche and get a coach who could get him that GS.

It isn't Roches fault that Lendl and Rafter lost their Wimbledon finals and Roger this years RG final :rolleyes:

Checho
10-07-2006, 09:42 PM
The only reason for which Federer hasn't won Roland Garros yet, is called Nadal..

World Beater
10-07-2006, 09:48 PM
yes i hope for his sake that the curse will be lifted for coach roche...roger thinks that roche is helping him, so if its anyone's fault, its roger's not roches.

atheneglaukopis
10-07-2006, 09:51 PM
The only reason for which Federer hasn't won Roland Garros yet, is called Nadal.Therefore he should hire Nadal as his coach! :crazy:

Ignore me. I'm feeling a bit silly. :)

robinhood
10-07-2006, 10:01 PM
Therefore he should hire Nadal as his coach! :crazy:

Ignore me. I'm feeling a bit silly. :)

:haha:
After the FO, Nadal should hire Fed as his coach to win Wimby. :crazy::crazy:

Checho
10-07-2006, 10:03 PM
Therefore he should hire Nadal as his coach! :crazy:

Ignore me. I'm feeling a bit silly. :)


It isn't a bad idea at all!!

The truth is that while Nadal plays, Federer is never going to win Roland Garros.

PamV
10-07-2006, 10:06 PM
Let's face it, Roche failed where it mattered most in his coaching: Lendl with a Wimby. Rafter without Wimby. Federer without French. Fed should dump Roche and get a coach who could get him that GS.

I never expected Roche to have any special magic to make Roger win a French Open. However, Roger did, in fact do a lot better on clay in 2006 than he did in 2005 or 2004. I think that Roger just likes him as an all around coach. I do wonder what Roche does help with .....because it's been a long time since his era, and things have changed a lot.

Eden
10-07-2006, 10:08 PM
The truth is that while Nadal plays, Federer is never going to win Roland Garros.

Don't jump to conclusions please :) There can happen so many things in sport and a victory for Nadal at Roland Garros isn't a guarantee. Otherwise the tournament hasn't to be played and Rafa could have the trophy right now ;)

World Beater
10-07-2006, 10:12 PM
Don't jump to conclusions please :) There can happen so many things in sport and a victory for Nadal at Roland Garros isn't a guarantee. Otherwise the tournament hasn't to be played and Rafa could have the trophy right now ;)

its okay eden...when and if roger does win, these sorts of speculation will have been squashed. Roger has plenty of time to prove otherwise. no need for us to point out the presumptuous nature of such posts when roger will have the best chance to do so in the future.

Checho
10-07-2006, 10:22 PM
Don't jump to conclusions please :) There can happen so many things in sport and a victory for Nadal at Roland Garros isn't a guarantee. Otherwise the tournament hasn't to be played and Rafa could have the trophy right now ;)

If Nadal keeps his good level, and he doesn't get injured, Federer won't win Roland Garros.

Do you like it more this way?

Nadal is the king of clay, and he is much better than Federer on this surface.

Eden
10-07-2006, 10:43 PM
If Nadal keeps his good level, and he doesn't get injured, Federer won't win Roland Garros.

Do you like it more this way?

Nadal is the king of clay, and he is much better than Federer on this surface.

The French Open won't be a tournament just between Nadal and Federer. There will be other players challenging both.

It's much to early to make a prediction about the clay court season of 2007.

Metis
10-07-2006, 11:41 PM
Therefore he should hire Nadal as his coach! :crazy:

Ignore me. I'm feeling a bit silly. :)
No, he should try to get adopted by Uncle Toni :p

atheneglaukopis
10-07-2006, 11:43 PM
No, he should try to get adopted by Uncle Toni :pI didn't specify which Nadal, did I? Great idea!

leng jai
10-08-2006, 12:11 AM
Man, this is such a retarded thread. Yes, its definitely Rochies fault that Federer can't hit his backhand properly against Nadal.

cmurray
10-08-2006, 12:37 AM
tony roche has nothing to do with Federer's failed attempts at RG. That distinction goes to one Rafael Nadal. So unless you're blaming tony for not putting a hit out on Rafa, i don't really see how it can be his dault

Howard
10-08-2006, 01:32 AM
I can’t understand why Federer even needs a coach, especially one that doesn’t like to travel. He seemed to do fine without one.

Macbrother
10-08-2006, 01:41 AM
Because he wants to bring his game to the next level, he's publically said he doesn't want to retire without the French, and he had his best year on the surface ever this year. (with Roche) Whether Roche can bring him that, who knows, but Fed says it's helping.

Checho:

If Nadal keeps his good level, and he doesn't get injured, Federer won't win Roland Garros.

Do you like it more this way?

Nadal is the king of clay, and he is much better than Federer on this surface.

And that's why Federer and Nadal had a 5 set tiebreak thriller in Rome? I don't even think it's "if," at this point, but rather a matter of "when." Federer has continually improved, I look forward to seeing how he performs next year.

cmurray
10-08-2006, 01:47 AM
Because he wants to bring his game to the next level, he's publically said he doesn't want to retire without the French, and he had his best year on the surface ever this year. (with Roche) Whether Roche can bring him that, who knows, but Fed says it's helping.

Checho:



And that's why Federer and Nadal had a 5 set tiebreak thriller in Rome? I don't even think it's "if," at this point, but rather a matter of "when." Federer has continually improved, I look forward to seeing how he performs next year.

I didn't get a chance to see the Rome final :mad: but I understand he played really well. The truth is that he didn't play really well at RG except for the first set. Maybe he just had that one moment of glory on clay???? :)

Chances are that Rafi will be beaten by somebody on clay this year. It would be......insane if he weren't. Plus there is the pressure of that ever-building clay-court wins record. As far as I can tell, Rafa doesn't really deal that well with those kind of nerves. BUT, I wouldn't necessarily count on roger being the one to do it. Rafi plays better against Roger just like Pete did against Andre. Don't know why, it just is.

leng jai
10-08-2006, 02:14 AM
I would count on Roger "figuring out" Nadal pretty soon though. Hes too good not to.

spencercarlos
10-08-2006, 04:35 AM
Let's face it, Roche failed where it mattered most in his coaching: Lendl with a Wimby. Rafter without Wimby. Federer without French. Fed should dump Roche and get a coach who could get him that GS.
Losing at that French Open had nothing to do with the coach.
Federer got to that final and was ahead one set at 6-1, and played very pathetic the rest of the match. :rolleyes:
You don´t bring your best for a grand slam final, against Nadal? On clay? lol you will only get beaten.

spencercarlos
10-08-2006, 04:37 AM
I would count on Roger "figuring out" Nadal pretty soon though. Hes too good not to.
Roger can beat him even on clay, the problem is that Nadal can beat him too in most surfaces (not yet on grass though).

DrJules
10-08-2006, 07:07 AM
tony roche has nothing to do with Federer's failed attempts at RG. That distinction goes to one Rafael Nadal. So unless you're blaming tony for not putting a hit out on Rafa, i don't really see how it can be his dault

I have been wondering the purpose of a coach. Possibly a way of spending money.:lol: :lol: :lol:

Coaches can result in significant performance improvements; Roddick and Connors.

DrJules
10-08-2006, 07:11 AM
Roger can beat him even on clay, the problem is that Nadal can beat him too in most surfaces (not yet on grass though).

I doubt that Nadal would have won in a US Open final against Federer. US Open courts and balls seem to produce fast hard conditions.

DrJules
10-08-2006, 07:13 AM
Losing at that French Open had nothing to do with the coach.
Federer got to that final and was ahead one set at 6-1, and played very pathetic the rest of the match. :rolleyes:
You don´t bring your best for a grand slam final, against Nadal? On clay? lol you will only get beaten.

Sports psychologist rather than coach required?

spencercarlos
10-08-2006, 07:23 AM
Sports psychologist rather than coach required?
He requires to play his best tennis against Nadal, simply because Nadal forces the oponnent to play that way if they want to beat him.

Eden
10-08-2006, 06:00 PM
I can’t understand why Federer even needs a coach, especially one that doesn’t like to travel. He seemed to do fine without one.

Yes, Roger proved indeed after the breakup from Peter Lundgren that he can do his job without a coach. But he had his reasons to hire Tony Roche and it seems that both get along very well. The agreement that Roche doesn't accompany Roger to every tournament seems to be a good solution for both :)

oschemi
10-08-2006, 06:43 PM
Because he wants to bring his game to the next level, he's publically said he doesn't want to retire without the French, and he had his best year on the surface ever this year. (with Roche) Whether Roche can bring him that, who knows, but Fed says it's helping.

Checho:



And that's why Federer and Nadal had a 5 set tiebreak thriller in Rome? I don't even think it's "if," at this point, but rather a matter of "when." Federer has continually improved, I look forward to seeing how he performs next year.


It is funny how you think Federer will improve and Nadal will stay stagnant and playing at the same level without improving his game.

Eden
10-08-2006, 06:50 PM
It is funny how you think Federer will improve and Nadal will stay stagnant and playing at the same level without improving his game.

I couldn't read anything about Nadal not improving in Macbrothers comment:shrug:

GlennMirnyi
10-08-2006, 11:26 PM
It isn't a bad idea at all!!

The truth is that while Nadal plays, Federer is never going to win Roland Garros.

Hey big noy, give me the numbers of the lottery and the day the world will end, if you're a clairvoyant.

Checho
10-08-2006, 11:51 PM
Hey big noy, give me the numbers of the lottery and the day the world will end, if you're a clairvoyant.

I'm not a clairvoyant at all, i'm just being realistic, that's all.

But to be honest, today, just don't care to me if Federer wins or not the damn Roland Garros or if Nadal continues being the king of clay. Even i don't care if Fat Dave qualyfies to the Master Cup or not.

The only thing i care today is that River has humiliated the fucking bastards of Boca.

Come On River Plate the biggest argentinian football (soccer) team by far.

Y que pasó, y que pasó, que "El rey de copas" se cagó!!!!

GlennMirnyi
10-08-2006, 11:58 PM
I'm not a clairvoyant at all, i'm just being realistic, that's all.

But to be honest, today, just don't care to me if Federer wins or not the damn Roland Garros or if Nadal continues being the king of clay. Even i don't care if Fat Dave qualyfies to the Master Cup or not.

The only thing i care today is that River has humiliated the fucking bastards of Boca.

Come On River Plate the biggest argentinian football (soccer) team by far.

Y que pasó, y que pasó, que "El rey de copas" se cagó!!!!

Finally a good statement. 3-1 River, wasn't it? I'll watch it later here. Great for the "millionaires".

Checho
10-09-2006, 12:19 AM
Finally a good statement. 3-1 River, wasn't it? I'll watch it later here. Great for the "millionaires".

Yes, it was 3-1, but it could be four or five to one. The first half was boring, but the second was awesome, Boca having the ball and River playing on counter-attack, but River has deserved more than 3 goals.

We finally could beat them in an official match after 2 years. They were winning too much lately, so it was very important to stop them.

The Super-Classic is an apart championship in Argentina, in fact, it's more valuable than many championships.

GlennMirnyi
10-09-2006, 12:24 AM
Yes, it was 3-1, but it could be four or five to one. The first half was boring, but the second was awesome, Boca having the ball and River playing on counter-attack, but River has deserved more than 3 goals.

We finally could beat them in an official match after 2 years. They were winning too much lately, so it was very important to stop them.

The Super-Classic is an apart championship in Argentina, in fact, it's more valuable than many championships.

That's great. I always cheered for River. I have their official uniform and everything.

Checho
10-09-2006, 12:46 AM
That's great. I always cheered for River. I have their official uniform and everything.

So, Congratulations!! if you are a River fan, you will enjoy the match tonight.

The second goal was amazing!! Higuaín is a hell of a player and Beluschi is a great play-maker.

This is a great day to all millionaires fans, the fake "half plus one" (Boca) will be crying for the rest of the year.

Dancing Hero
10-09-2006, 06:08 PM
For what it's worth, I see Federer winning Roland Garros some year. It's not like he's chopped liver on clay is it? Still one of the best on the stuff.

CmonAussie
10-09-2006, 06:41 PM
I can’t understand why Federer even needs a coach, especially one that doesn’t like to travel. He seemed to do fine without one.
:wavey:
Fed did fine without a coach:cool:
Fed is still doing fine with a coach;) ~~has Roche brought him bad luck:confused:

DDrago2
10-09-2006, 06:43 PM
Federer's problem in RG is neither coach nor Nadal but the surface and conditions. He had many hard loses in that tournament in the past and is still vulnerable and can get beaten by quite a few players. I think his realistic stength in RG is semi-finals, he was even lucky this year to make it to the finals

Eden
10-10-2006, 06:04 PM
Federer's problem in RG is neither coach nor Nadal but the surface and conditions. He had many hard loses in that tournament in the past and is still vulnerable and can get beaten by quite a few players. I think his realistic stength in RG is semi-finals, he was even lucky this year to make it to the finals

Why do you think he was lucky to make it to Roland Garros final this year?

Roger reached 3 claycourt finals this year and lost there to the best claycourt player there is at the moment.

Roger has proved that he is a good player on clay. He didn't won the Hamburg tournaments for free for example ;) He was able to beat several successful claycourt players.

It's true that Roger had suffered some early defeats in the French Open, but he also has improved every year: In 2005 the semi-final and this year the final.

buzz
10-10-2006, 08:12 PM
I think DDrago meant that he didn´t have to beat a fit Nalbandian.

Eden
10-10-2006, 09:05 PM
I think DDrago meant that he didn´t have to beat a fit Nalbandian.

Nadal didn't have to win against a fit Djokovic either (he retired after the second set) - so where is the problem?

But I know which answers will probably appear - that Nadal dominated the match against Djokovic and Roger lost the first set against Nalbandian ;)

To be honest: I felt really sorry for Nalbandian that he had to retire in his match against Roger. He was playing great tennis in the first set and Roger got into the match in the second. It's a pity that they couldn't finish the match.

Howard
10-10-2006, 11:37 PM
:wavey:
Fed did fine without a coach:cool:
Fed is still doing fine with a coach;) ~~has Roche brought him bad luck:confused:No, but I think he'd do just as well on his own.

Eden
10-14-2006, 10:46 AM
I can’t understand why Federer even needs a coach, especially one that doesn’t like to travel. He seemed to do fine without one.

I think Federer and Roche have found the right balance for their cooperation. Tony doesn't have to travel all the time with Roger, but I'm sure they talk on the telephone when Roger plays a tournament without him.

SLICK
10-14-2006, 11:04 AM
I think Mats Wilander would probably be able to help Roger overcome the Nadal problem at RG better than any other coach.