Mens Tennis Forums banner

1 - 20 of 37 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
4,415 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Interesting 15-minute interview at Wimbledon with Paul Annacone, former coach of Roger Federer, Pete Sampras and Tim Henman. Talks about coaching Federer, comparisons with Sampras, maturity of Federer's game, and more.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XGKi6vCU8EA
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,328 Posts
9:38 - 10:10
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
5,883 Posts
Great interview, Annacone actually admits that Safin and Hewitt weren't at the level of Sampras/Agassi/Nadal/Djokovic, so he was winning just because he was better than all of them, which I absolutely agree. When he had to play against Nadal, he didn't use much tactic in 2005, 2006 and 2007, but with losing more and more ground he hired Higueras, which didn't succeed, but still a try nevertheless. Nowadays he's much better in tactics and overall net approaches, he knows what he wants to play, which is a big plus, but you can't save the loss of a movement here, especially on the slower surfaces. If Fed 2015 and Fed 2004-2012 played against each other, Fed 2015 would've give the other Fed the toughest time at Wimbledon, because he knows what to play now against every opponent perfectly.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,909 Posts
Annacone is quite open here... I'm surprised he shared his feeling about Fed's early era simply because it supposedly hurts Fed's legacy. It's BS of course and I'm glad Annacone steps up and says it with no problem.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,477 Posts
perfect job interview, Paul, you're hired :D

p.s. the handshake between Roger and Tim :haha: :haha:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
448 Posts
Great interview, Annacone actually admits that Safin and Hewitt weren't at the level of Sampras/Agassi/Nadal/Djokovic, so he was winning just because he was better than all of them, which I absolutely agree. When he had to play against Nadal, he didn't use much tactic in 2005, 2006 and 2007, but with losing more and more ground he hired Higueras, which didn't succeed, but still a try nevertheless. Nowadays he's much better in tactics and overall net approaches, he knows what he wants to play, which is a big plus, but you can't save the loss of a movement here, especially on the slower surfaces. If Fed 2015 and Fed 2004-2012 played against each other, Fed 2015 would've give the other Fed the toughest time at Wimbledon, because he knows what to play now against every opponent perfectly.
I think its stupid to compare eras in general. Sure Safin and Hewitt aren't Djokovich or Sampras level now but that's because Federer stunted their growth by embarrassing them and destroying their confidence. We all know how important confidence is to growth. Tool wise, even Roddick probably could have developed better than Sampras if he played in a non Federer era.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,361 Posts
I think its stupid compare eras in general. Sure Safin and Hewitt aren't Djokovich or Sampras level now but that's because Federer stunted their growth by embarrassing them and destroying their confidence. We all know how important confidence is to growth. Tool wise, even Roddick probably could have developed better than Sampras if he played in a non Federer era.
Can't really ask for more from a tard.
Complete delusion. Utter ignorance. Plus this specific psychopath vibe.
A post every psychology major should read.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
13,477 Posts
Can't really ask for more from a tard.
Complete delusion. Utter ignorance. Plus this specific psychopath vibe.
A post every psychology major should read.
right back at you mate :eek:

The post you quoted is actually a pretty solid theory.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
15,791 Posts
proof that Henman would've crushed Federer if they hadn't changed the grass and won 2002, 2003 and 2004 Wimbledon :bigwave:


(yes yes, 2001 was freak conditions, we've had this discussion hence the change didn't effect the event much, Rafter played Goran for pitty's sake)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,623 Posts
Annacone confirms the weak era :worship:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,993 Posts
I think the Safin, Hewitt, Roddick, Federer, Kuerten, Ferrero group were very strong!

When you look at Sampras his results, you see that 99 was probably his last very good year, after that in 2000, 2001 and 2002 he got beaten convincingly by 20 year olds like hewitt and Safin in slams, while he could still beat his era Rafter at wimbledon final and later agassi for his last gs titel.

let me put his results for 2000, 2001 and 2002 slams and masters cup on a row
AO 2000, lost to agassi in semifinal agassi was allways hard for him on slow courts nothing new.
rg 2000, lost to philipousis in early round new era young guy who preferred faster surfaces like Sampras
wim 2000, Won beat mainly players from his era nothing new.
USO 2000, got trashed in the final by 20yo Safin, new guy who seems to have his number on fast courts
Mastercup, lost to Kuerten, pretty new guy at the top of mens tennis

AO 2001, Loses to Tod Martin, played badly whole tournament(happened sometimes with Sampras)
RG 2001, loses to a clay player, nothing new.
wimb 2001, just loses in 5 to new era player Federer, first wimbledon los in a long time.
USO 2001, Loses to new era player Hewitt, convincingly
Masters Cup 2001, did not play.

AO 2002, Loses to new era player Safin
RG 2002, loses to italian, nothing new.
Wim 2002, loses to bastl, should never lose plays poor I guess
USO 2002, wins over own era Agassi in final, (here he also beat new era Roddick and Haas)
Masters cup 2002 did not play.


What does this mean? it is hard to say the new guys pushed him down because he was getting old or because they were so good. But these guys became no1 and slam winners at a very young age, by beating up 29-31 year old sampras and his era.

in the end, at some point every generation gets beaten by a younger generation, sometimes it takes 5years sometimes 10 or whatever number.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
720 Posts
The "weak era" argument is weak. The Nadal era started when he won his first French in 2005. Federer has won 13 majors (14 if he wins tomorrow) since the start of the Nadal era. He can anyone argue that Federer won most of his titles in a weak era?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,119 Posts
Very nice interview, obviously Annacone has a lot to say about these guys. NID that haters will jump on his "weak era" arguments but it's hard to deny that Fed's opposition back in the days lacked an all-time great. Not that these guys had no talent of course, they had plenty of it but for various reasons (mentality, fitness, bad luck, whatever) they did not deliver. I agree about the tactics issue, and maybe given the context he could have illustrated that with the Murray rivalry which is a perfect example: refusing to adapt his tactics against such a "weaponless pusher" (his comments early on were pretty nasty) lead him to a H2H close to turkey territory, and he completely turned it around...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
23,623 Posts
The "weak era" argument is weak. The Nadal era started when he won his first French in 2005. Federer has won 13 majors (14 if he wins tomorrow) since the start of the Nadal era. He can anyone argue that Federer won most of his titles in a weak era?
Lol, Nadal era started in 2005 as much as the Djokovic era started in 2008, or Sampras era in 1990 etc.

I'll just leave this here:

Before Djokovic cracked open Federer at the 2008 AO, Federer had won 12 Slams in a weak era, Nadal had won 3, and wasn't a threat outside of clay in Slams.

We know what happened next.
 

·
External factor expert
Joined
·
4,173 Posts
I'm going to break it down for you Fedtards. The reason why Federer looked absolutely amazing is mainly because the weak era allowed Federer to play his game. There was little strategy involved. Once someone retrieved more than Federer was used to, tension started to build up and we all know how clutch Federer is...

I mean just look at Agassi's old quotes, praising Federer's complete game, even the backhand was brilliant according to Agassi. :superlol: Later guys started to hit on the Bh side more often and noticed how easily it breaks down, especialy under pressure.
Today players have a whole camp such weakness cant escape their eye. We are living in an era of tactics.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
93 Posts
I think its stupid compare eras in general. Sure Safin and Hewitt aren't Djokovich or Sampras level now but that's because Federer stunted their growth by embarrassing them and destroying their confidence. We all know how important confidence is to growth. Tool wise, even Roddick probably could have developed better than Sampras if he played in a non Federer era.
Are you seriously suggesting that one player is responsible for the professional development of three different players?
 
1 - 20 of 37 Posts
Top