Not really a fan ofo Bodo myself, but he weighs in on Roger's coaching situation:
http://tennisworld.typepad.com/tennisworld/2008/04/tk-1.html
The Reluctances
Posted 04/16/2008 @ 1 :35 PM
Mornin', everyone. I've been locked down for the past few days with some editing work for Tennis (the mothership), so I haven't had much chance to comment on Roger Federer's decision to work with semi-retired coach Jose Higueras on a trial basis this week in Estoril.
Before we look at that, let's give Miguel "Mikey" Seabra, a great friend of TennisWorld and one of Europe's finest tennis commentators, a hat tip for breaking the news of this relationship here at TennisWorld a few days ago. Miguel is always looking out for us, and I'm hoping that despite his busy schedule he'll send us a post from Estoril.
Miguel posted the news of the Federer-Higueras hook-up in the comments section at 11:49 AM on April 12th - more than four days ago. Since then, pundits from all over have been weighing in on Federer's choice, so let's take a closer look at it.
Down on Key Biscayne, Tomahawk Perrotta and I had a chance to shoot the breeze with Federer's agent, Tony Godsick (IMG), who reiterated that Roger was definitely looking only for a part-time coach. He also told us that Roger's actual training (as opposed to game-tuning and fitness maintenance) consumes about 10 weeks, mostly at the end of one year and the beginning of the next. So right off the bat, it seems that the only real role Higueras can play in 2008 is that of an adviser on the X's and O's, a scout and analyst of The Mighty Fed's rivals (great and small), and an emotional/psychological ally and confidant.
So here's what we know about TMF's coaching needs: He does almost all of his serious (off the tournament grid) training in Dubai, during the winter. He wants a drop-in coach, rather than a week-to-week companion. He's never been conspicuously reliant on a coach in the way Andy Roddick has relied on Brad Gilbert, then Jimmy Connors. He seems to have no great need for the emotional bond that exists in close player-coach relationships. He seems very comfortable - and he's been wildly successful at - figuring out how to beat his challengers. Only Rafael Nadal, on clay, has posed more questions than Federer has been able to answer.
Now here's what we know about Higueras: As a player, he was the ultimate baseline grinder. He was, in some ways, the anti-Federer, hitting big, loopy, topspin groundstrokes from the baseline all day. Higuera was an indefatigable worker, in practice as well as on court, but he didn't have enough game (stroke, strategy or athleticism-wise) to punch through at majors, a la Carlos Moya or even Gaston Gaudio.
After Higueras, having married an American girl, retired to Palm Springs, he worked mostly as a coach employed by the USTA. He worked with a host of American players including Michael Chang, often on a part-time basis. But he had an intense, fully dedicated compact with the player who would be his most successful and high-profile coaching project, Jim Courier.
Although Courier was pretty much a finished product (thanks to the Nick Bollettieri Tennis Academy and Jim's former coach, Sergio Cruz) when he struck up a partnership with Higueras in 1990, the Spanish expat helped him enormously in areas as different as self control and shot selection. You may also remember the famous incident that occurred during the 1991 Roland Garros final between Courier and Andre Agassi. Agassi won the first set, looking unstoppable, but soon there was a rain delay. During the break, Higueras advised Courier to back off a little when returning, instead of trying to attack Agassi's serve. Courier followed suit, and went on to win the match.
Ultimately, though, Higueras grew sick of traveling and uninterested in having an intense coach-protege relationship. After he parted ways with Courier, he coached on his own terms, working with players for short stints at his own home base, not theirs. When Pete Sampras decided to make a coaching change at a stage late in his own career, Higueras hired on - but again on his own terms. Although he whipped Sampras into great physical shape, his unwillingness to travel and his emotional disinterest (about which Higueras was always honest) proved to be deal breakers. Sampras ultimately re-hired his former coach (Paul Annacone), who provided him with the inspirational fuel to make his career-ending run.
So what of this new pairing, TMF and Higueras?
The most striking thing to me is that it's based to some degree on reluctances: Federer's antipathy toward having a coach sitting across the table from him every morning at breakfast, drawing diagrams on napkins, and Higueras's well-documented aversion to making the emotional investment, and all that entails, in a protege. It's also hard to imagine him spending weeks in Dubai. In some ways, the reluctances dovetail, and they may allow either man to function in his comfort zone. That, at any rate, has to be the hope of Federer fans.
On the other hand, the reluctances can just as easily turn this experiment into an inadequate response to a problem that may - or may not - exist: Federer's need of a coach at this stage in his already storied career. Just how anyone feels about this move is probably determined by the degree to which he or she thinks that Federer needs a coach, and the extent to which this current "slump" is an authentic crisis.
To that end, I put no stock whatsoever in the theory that Higueras is auditioning because of his towering reputation as a worker and taskmaster. Hail, Federer isn't going to be doing any kind of serious training for some time. I suspect that Federer is looking for answers in the way of X's an O's, not jumping jacks or cross-court-and-down-the-line drills. Federer needs the latter like he needs a hole in the head.
Once again, I find myself thinking of the growing friendship between Sampras and TMF. When they worked together, Higueras finally told Sampras something that his loyalty to Courier had prevented him from revealing before. Higueras knew exactly what Sampras did, strategically, that allowed him to own Courier (the H2H is 16-4). Perhaps that planted a seed in TMF's mind.
I'm guessing that Higueras is on-board for two reasons, Nadal and Djokovic. With all due respect to Tony Roche, I can't imagine how that grizzled Aussie serve-and-volley specialist from a bygone era could have had great insight into how to move Nadal out of his comfort zone on clay, even if he knew how to keep TMF in his own. Higueras, as a clay-court expert, has a much deeper bag of tricks in that regard. Djokovic may pose even be an even greater long-term concern for Federer, because his hard court game is so fully realized. And as a former coach of Chang, Courier and Sampras, Higueras has plenty of experience fine-tuning a hard court game.
Let's look at Federer's prospects in the upcoming majors. At Roland Garros, he's likely to be an underdog to Nadal. At Wimbledon, he'll be the favorite, but Wimbledon is an odd combination of crap-shoot and slam-dunk for TMF. While he has - hands down - the best game for grass, turf also is the most dangerous surface, for anyone. Even in this era of slower grass, the slick surface levels the playing field in the early rounds. At the U.S. Open, Djokovic will have enhanced credibility - and greater confidence.
So my feeling is that TMF may be far more concerned with solving the games of his rivals than ever before, and I wouldn't blame him one bit for doing everything to underplay that element in his search for a coach. A year ago, I thought he could really benefit from having a full-time coach - quite simply, there was no down side. Now, in this key, final stage of his assault on the Grand Slam singles title record, and with Novak Djokovic opening a new front in the counter-offensive, I believe he needs one.
At some point, every great player has been besieged and forced to circle the wagons, load the guns, and make a stand. It's a whole lot easier to win that battle when you have someone inside the circle with you. Why be a lonely hero, or delay the inevitable?
Right now, Federer could really use someone whom he respects and trusts (and I don't mean Mirka, the keeper at his gate) to tell him: Just go out and show that other guy that you're Roger Federer and he's not. One thing I took from his recent losses is a renewed impression that TMF is perhaps a bit too accustomed to smooth sailing; I don't think he reacts well to being confronted, bullied, or smothered. When a match is a demonstration of skill and derring-do, he's fine; when it's a street-fight against a guy who comes at him with chest flung out and enough power to hurt him, he seems tempted to shut down.
If there's a shortcoming in Federer's career game plan. it seems to be his blithe indifference to the emotional/psychological value and functions of a coach. In that sense, auditioning a coach who has expressed a disinterest in that aspect of the job is, well, in character, but also questionable. TMF seems to operate on the premise that he can either work things our, or figure them out, on his own. He's been good at it so far, that's for sure. But things can change very quickly in tennis, and it's good to have someone by your side when it's time to circle the wagons.