Hiring Annacone: the worst decision of Federer's career?

[calitennis127]

Federer officially hired Annacone in August of 2010 and parted ways with him in October of 2013. During that time span, he only won 1 Slam and his record against Nadal was a woeful 3-7, with 2 of his victories being cheap wins at ATP World Tour Finals (where Nadal sucks). The only 1 of those 3 victories outside of the World Tour Finals was at Indian Wells in 2012. Included in his 7 losses to Nadal were not just the usual clay losses but hardcourt debacles at Miami 2011 (straight sets loss), Melbourne 2012 (4-set loss), Indian Wells 2013 (straight set loss), and Cincinnati (3-set loss where Federer won the first set).

Yes, Paul Annacone even coached Federer into losing against Nadal at Cincinnati. Let that sink in. He even coached Federer into losing against Nadal at Cincinnati. Lol. Yes, Federer losing to Nadal at Cincinnati. Miami and Indian Wells was bad enough, but Cincinnati? Where Nadal's game is almost as bad a fit as it is at World Tour Finals? This shows just how incompetent Annacone was at strategizing against Nadal.

But this should come as no surprise since Annacone's wooden, boring, and uncreative mentality exactly mirrors that of the Lebanese Elmer Fudd. What Elmer (aka Grabbag 45) said about the Federer-Nadal match-up for years was almost identical to what Annacone has always said about it. If I may borrow a phrase from Michael Bloomberg, you can take what Elmer said and "Xerox it" to know exactly what Annacone was thinking and saying. They both had the ultimate loser's mentality. And it showed for Federer, as he started taking it on the chin on hardcourts in addition to clay.

I should also note that even though Federer typically lost to Nadal on clay, hardly any of his losses were as ugly as the 2013 loss to Nadal in Rome, where he lost 6-1, 6-3. This was to be expected since he had Paul Annacone (Elmer's clone) in his ear advising him.

In the end, both Elmer and Annacone were disproven in their assessment of Federer-Nadal, as Federer went on a 5-match winning streak against Nadal from 2015 to 2017. This never would have happened with Annacone as Fed's coach. But can we all agree that the worst decision Federer has ever made was hiring Annacone? It clearly caused him to take a step back in his career and likely cost him multiple Slams.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Federer officially hired Annacone in August of 2010 and parted ways with him in October of 2013. During that time span, he only won 1 Slam and his record against Nadal was a woeful 3-7, with 2 of his victories being cheap wins at ATP World Tour Finals (where Nadal sucks). The only 1 of those 3 victories outside of the World Tour Finals was at Indian Wells in 2012. Included in his 7 losses to Nadal were not just the usual clay losses but hardcourt debacles at Miami 2011 (straight sets loss), Melbourne 2012 (4-set loss), Indian Wells 2013 (straight set loss), and Cincinnati (3-set loss where Federer won the first set).

Yes, Paul Annacone even coached Federer into losing against Nadal at Cincinnati. Let that sink in. He even coached Federer into losing against Nadal at Cincinnati. Lol. Yes, Federer losing to Nadal at Cincinnati. Miami and Indian Wells was bad enough, but Cincinnati? Where Nadal's game is almost as bad a fit as it is at World Tour Finals? This shows just how incompetent Annacone was at strategizing against Nadal.

But this should come as no surprise since Annacone's wooden, boring, and uncreative mentality exactly mirrors that of the Lebanese Elmer Fudd. What Elmer (aka Grabbag 45) said about the Federer-Nadal match-up for years was almost identical to what Annacone has always said about it. If I may borrow a phrase from Michael Bloomberg, you can take what Elmer said and "Xerox it" to know exactly what Annacone was thinking and saying. They both had the ultimate loser's mentality. And it showed for Federer, as he started taking it on the chin on hardcourts in addition to clay.

I should also note that even though Federer typically lost to Nadal on clay, hardly any of his losses were as ugly as the 2013 loss to Nadal in Rome, where he lost 6-1, 6-3. This was to be expected since he had Paul Annacone (Elmer's clone) in his ear advising him.

In the end, both Elmer and Annacone were disproven in their assessment of Federer-Nadal, as Federer went on a 5-match winning streak against Nadal from 2015 to 2017. This never would have happened with Annacone as Fed's coach. But can we all agree that the worst decision Federer has ever made was hiring Annacone? It clearly caused him to take a step back in his career and likely cost him multiple Slams.

That’s not the way my sources tell me. PA tried to get Roger to commit to a larger frame racket but Roger wouldn’t was reluctant to change. Lubic got Roger to change to the larger frame and to drive his bh dtl and flatter.. El dude or GSM..keep me honest here if I don’t have it correct!

 

[Jelenafan]

Federer officially hired Annacone in August of 2010 and parted ways with him in October of 2013. During that time span, he only won 1 Slam and his record against Nadal was a woeful 3-7, with 2 of his victories being cheap wins at ATP World Tour Finals (where Nadal sucks). The only 1 of those 3 victories outside of the World Tour Finals was at Indian Wells in 2012. Included in his 7 losses to Nadal were not just the usual clay losses but hardcourt debacles at Miami 2011 (straight sets loss), Melbourne 2012 (4-set loss), Indian Wells 2013 (straight set loss), and Cincinnati (3-set loss where Federer won the first set).

Yes, Paul Annacone even coached Federer into losing against Nadal at Cincinnati. Let that sink in. He even coached Federer into losing against Nadal at Cincinnati. Lol. Yes, Federer losing to Nadal at Cincinnati. Miami and Indian Wells was bad enough, but Cincinnati? Where Nadal's game is almost as bad a fit as it is at World Tour Finals? This shows just how incompetent Annacone was at strategizing against Nadal.

But this should come as no surprise since Annacone's wooden, boring, and uncreative mentality exactly mirrors that of the Lebanese Elmer Fudd. What Elmer (aka Grabbag 45) said about the Federer-Nadal match-up for years was almost identical to what Annacone has always said about it. If I may borrow a phrase from Michael Bloomberg, you can take what Elmer said and "Xerox it" to know exactly what Annacone was thinking and saying. They both had the ultimate loser's mentality. And it showed for Federer, as he started taking it on the chin on hardcourts in addition to clay.

I should also note that even though Federer typically lost to Nadal on clay, hardly any of his losses were as ugly as the 2013 loss to Nadal in Rome, where he lost 6-1, 6-3. This was to be expected since he had Paul Annacone (Elmer's clone) in his ear advising him.

In the end, both Elmer and Annacone were disproven in their assessment of Federer-Nadal, as Federer went on a 5-match winning streak against Nadal from 2015 to 2017. This never would have happened with Annacone as Fed's coach. But can we all agree that the worst decision Federer has ever made was hiring Annacone? It clearly caused him to take a step back in his career and likely cost him multiple Slams.

By that barometer was Stefan Edberg’s tenure as coach any better? In 2014-15 Federer failed to win any Majors, losing to Novak at a Winbledon and USO final.

 

[calitennis127]

By that barometer was Stefan Edberg’s tenure as coach any better? In 2014-15 Federer failed to win any Majors, losing to Novak at a Winbledon and USO final.

His level was much better during that period than it was during the Annacone stint. Federer played some of the best tennis I've seen him play at the 2015 US Open before he lost to Djokovic. Don't forget how he spanked Wawrinka in the 2015 US Open semis. And the 2014 Wimbledon was a classic 5-set match.

I don't see how any of that compares to going as low as losing to Nadal in straights in Miami and Indian Wells, or even losing to Nadal in Cincinnati. That's as low as it can get for Federer on hardcourts.

 

[calitennis127]

That’s not the way my sources tell me. PA tried to get Roger to commit to a larger frame racket but Roger wouldn’t was reluctant to change. Lubic got Roger to change to the larger frame and to drive his bh dtl and flatter.. El dude or GSM..keep me honest here if I don’t have it correct!

Sorry, that doesn't explain losing to f-ing Nadal in straights at Miami and Indian Wells, let alone losing at Cincinnati where Federer has had one of his best MS-level records. Ask yourself: if you were Federer's coach for three years and during that time he lost in straights to Nadal at both Miami and Indian Wells, and even lost to him in Cincinnati (where the conditions are perfect for Federer's game), would you be proud of yourself?

 

[Jelenafan]

His level was much better during that period than it was during the Annacone stint. Federer played some of the best tennis I've seen him play at the 2015 US Open before he lost to Djokovic. Don't forget how he spanked Wawrinka in the 2015 US Open semis. And the 2014 Wimbledon was a classic 5-set match.

I don't see how any of that compares to going as low as losing to Nadal in straights in Miami and Indian Wells, or even losing to Nadal in Cincinnati. That's as low as it can get for Federer on hardcourts.

Yet he actually won a Major under Annacone. With Edberg he did not. Of course Nadal went through his own bad patch in 2015, but in his case the same coach Uncle Toni saw him through his best and worst years...

 

[calitennis127]

It's funny looking back on the summer of 2013 run and recalling that Nadal's two keynote victories (over Federer in Cincinnati and Djokovic at the US Open) were two of the worst collapses/performances we've ever seen from Federer and Djokovic. In Federer's case, this largely owes to Annacone's negative influence. Can anyone imagine being Federer's coach and stooping so low as to allow Nadal to beat him at Cincinatti of all places?

This really was one of the most awful losses of Federer's career. I'm not surprised that he parted with Annacone shortly after it:

 

[calitennis127]

Yet he actually won a Major under Annacone. With Edberg he did not. Of course Nadal went through his own bad patch in 2015, but in his case the same coach Uncle Toni saw him through his best and worst years...

Coaching Federer to win Wimbledon against anyone but Djokovic is not hard. All you have to say is "play a good match today, Roger. Go for your shots." It might almost be as easy as coaching Federer against Nadal at Cincinnati for anyone but Paul Annacone. Edberg was just unlucky that Federer had to play Djokovic twice in the Wimbledon final.

 

[Jelenafan]

Coaching Federer to win Wimbledon against anyone but Djokovic is not hard. All you have to say is "play a good match today, Roger. Go for your shots." It might almost be as easy as coaching Federer against Nadal at Cincinnati for anyone but Paul Annacone. Edberg was just unlucky that Federer had to play Djokovic twice in the Wimbledon final.

And yet Paul Annacone coached Sampras to multiple Major victories....

at the same time, wasn't Stefan Edberg Federer's coach for Roger's straight set loss on HC to Nadal in Jan. 2014 ?

2014

Australian Open Australia

Outdoor Hard

SF

Rafael Nadal

76(4) 63 63

That was probably Nadal's most dominant win over Federer in a non-clay Major and it came under Edberg's coaching.

 

[calitennis127]

And yet Paul Annacone coached Sampras to multiple Major victories....

at the same time, wasn't Stefan Edberg Federer's coach for Roger's straight set loss on HC to Nadal in Jan. 2014 ?

2014

Australian Open Australia

Outdoor Hard

SF

Rafael Nadal

76(4) 63 63

That was probably Nadal's most dominant win over Federer in a non-clay Major and it came under Edberg's coaching.

Federer hired Edberg at the end of December 2013 and Melbourne 2014 was Edberg's first tournament as Federer's coach. I don't think you can grade Edberg's influence after just a few days of working with Federer.

Before Federer lost to Nadal at Miami 2011, Indian Wells 2013, and Cincinnati 2013, he had been working with Annacone for months, if not years (in the latter two cases). I don't think the two coaching situations compare.

 

[Moxie]

You make a big deal of Annacone's tenure and Roger's record against Nadal during that time. You seem to forget that Rafa was well into Roger's head by 2008. Somehow you skipped that big HC win at AO 2009. What have you got against Annacone? From the way you couch it, it was all about what Nadal won. Since we know you're not a Federer fan, this really does seem to have a lot to do with letting Nadal slip in wins you wish he hadn't. Am I wrong? Just to clarify.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Sorry, that doesn't explain losing to f-ing Nadal in straights at Miami and Indian Wells, let alone losing at Cincinnati where Federer has had one of his best MS-level records. Ask yourself: if you were Federer's coach for three years and during that time he lost in straights to Nadal at both Miami and Indian Wells, and even lost to him in Cincinnati (where the conditions are perfect for Federer's game), would you be proud of yourself?

So you are basing a good tournament run on how well Roger fares against Nadal " only".. That's makes no sense to me..Cali, just like other team sports such as football and basketball, tennis Players make adjustments to counter their most competitive opponents recent strengths and strides they have recently been successful against the entire tour..Eg. Novak and Rafa have both made counters and tweaking to their game to reverse the current status. Roger has done the same. However, you are beginning to subscribing to single minded philosophies that Darth historically ranted about Rafa's game..e.g. "Roger had no business loosing to Nadal at Wimbledon 2008"! I thought it was very careless of Darth to make that exclamation. Trully , take a look at the changes Rafa made since his 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon campaigns. He attack Roger's BH and kept his service returns in the center of the court. He added slice to his backhand and began moving forward to take control of the net.
Cali, I don't know what you do for a living but in most businesses endeavors, if you don't respect the opposition strengths and achievements, you will not continue to grow or be very competitive.

 

[calitennis127]

So you are basing a good tournament run on how well Roger fares against Nadal " only".. That's makes no sense to me..Cali, just like other team sports such as football and basketball, tennis Players make adjustments to counter their most competitive opponents recent strengths and strides they have recently been successful against the entire tour..Eg. Novak and Rafa have both made counters and tweaking to their game to reverse the current status. Roger has done the same.

Agreed.

However, you are beginning to subscribing to single minded philosophies that Darth historically ranted about Rafa's game..e.g. "Roger had no business loosing to Nadal at Wimbledon 2008"! I thought it was very careless of Darth to make that exclamation. Trully , take a look at the changes Rafa made since his 2006 and 2007 Wimbledon campaigns. He attack Roger's BH and kept his service returns in the center of the court. He added slice to his backhand and began moving forward to take control of the net.

Wimbledon 2008 was a tricky match to judge. I personally wanted Nadal to win at the time because I was tired of seeing Federer win everything off of clay and get what I thought was excessive praise. Unfortunately his loss to Nadal in the final let a genie out of the bottle that he never reigned in.

Strictly speaking, was Darth right that Federer should have won the 2008 final in pure tennis terms? For the most part, yes. Federer is obviously the far superior grasscourt player. At the same time, given how much Federer underachieved on clay up until that time, what happened at Wimbledon was basically inevitable. He had lost to Nadal so many times on clay when he shouldn't have that the match-up was clearly getting to his head. Winning any tight match with Nadal anywhere was clearly going to become a problem. That's sort of what happened to Nadal in 2011 against Djokovic.....he lost two tight ones on hardcourts and then it carried over into getting drubbed at Madrid and Rome.

One match people don't talk about much from 2008 was the Hamburg final.....you may recall that Federer was up 5-1 in the first set there but lost the set and the match. It's hard to keep losing tight matches that way and squandering leads and then prevent a ripple effect.

As for my point about Annacone, you are making it for me: what positive adjustments did he bring to Federer's game? If anything he brought a regression, as demonstrated by the awful 3-7 record against Nadal (1-7 if you exclude the two cheapies at World Tour Finals).

 

[calitennis127]

You make a big deal of Annacone's tenure and Roger's record against Nadal during that time. You seem to forget that Rafa was well into Roger's head by 2008.

Not to the point of straight-setting him at Masters hard court events or even beating him at Cincinatti.

Somehow you skipped that big HC win at AO 2009.

A match which went 5 and which Federer very easily could have won, in contrast to getting straight-setted at Miami and Indian Wells (and losing at Federer's best HC event at Cincinnati) under Annacone.

What have you got against Annacone?

From listening to his broadcasts, I hate his mentality and I think his assessment of the game is feeble-minded. It makes total sense to me that Federer had the struggles he did under him. He is sort of the male version of the clueless bimbo you like (Mary Carillo).

From the way you couch it, it was all about what Nadal won. Since we know you're not a Federer fan, this really does seem to have a lot to do with letting Nadal slip in wins you wish he hadn't. Am I wrong? Just to clarify.

Federer for a time (roughly 2003 to 2005) was my favorite player and I have generally rooted for him. But the losses to Nadal during Annacone's coaching tenure were indicative of a much wider problem. Obviously those matches carry greater significance than other matches do for Federer's psyche. For him to go 3-7 against Nadal during that time had a profound residual effect on how he did at other events.

 

[Moxie]

Not to the point of straight-setting him at Masters hard court events or even beating him at Cincinatti.

A match which went 5 and which Federer very easily could have won, in contrast to getting straight-setted at Miami and Indian Wells (and losing at Federer's best HC event at Cincinnati) under Annacone.

I'm combining these two comments for the purposes of my clarity. I want to amend my above in that while I think much of the damage Rafa had done to Roger mentally was done in 2008, I think it became apparent in the fifth set of the AO final. His serve was abandoning him, and he started to get that look like, "I've seen this movie before." You actually brush past that AO, saying that it was "a match that went 5 and which Federer very easily could have won...." That's kind of a meaningless statement. Roger didn't even win that match the hard way. I will give you that basically everyone, and I would include most likely Roger and Rafa, thought Federer would win that match, given esp. the SF that Nadal had played only about 36 hours before. So why do you think he lost it? Most would say because Rafa was well in his head. I think you're skating past it because it doesn't fit with your Blame Annacone theory.

Your point above that Rafa had never straight-setted Fed at a MS1000 before Annacone is factually incorrect. The first time they played was at Miami in 2004, and Rafa won 3 and 3. And Nadal came very close to beating him in Miami in the final in '05 but lucky for Roger the final was still Bo5 then. And he'd beaten him in Dubai, though in 3. Their H2H at the point that he hired Annacone was already something like 15-7 in Nadal's favor. The mental damage had been done. I'm not sure what exactly you have against Annacone, beyond that you don't much respect him, but I'm also not sure how you lay certain things at his feet. Roger had turned 29 when they started working together, and was 32 when they parted ways. Even given Roger's longevity in the game, that was still " late-middle age" in terms of Roger's tennis years. I would lay more blame on Roger's resisting hiring a coach basically at all in the years when Rafa was building his little atelier up there in Roger's head.

Federer for a time (roughly 2003 to 2005) was my favorite player and I have generally rooted for him. But the losses to Nadal during Annacone's coaching tenure were indicative of a much wider problem. Obviously those matches carry greater significance than other matches do for Federer's psyche. For him to go 3-7 against Nadal during that time had a profound residual effect on how he did at other events.

Interesting to know about you and Roger. I always thought you were fairly agnostic about Federer. Anyway, I disagree with you about the timing in terms of Roger's psyche vis-a-vis Rafa. There aren't many Fed fans around here at the moment, but I'd wager most would say that losing the AO was a benchmark. The man cried trying to make his speech, FFS. He said it was "killing" him. Again, it seems to me that you're pushing it forward in order to support your theory of blaming Annacone, which I still think is over-determined, and frankly, odd. On Annacone's watch, Roger got his #1 ranking back, after more than 2 years out of the top slot, and he won a Major for the first time in 3 years. You can underplay as much as you like what it takes to "coach" Roger to a W at Wimbledon, but he was in a dry spell, and Annacone was there when it lifted, for a bit. They quit working together, and Roger didn't win another major for 4.5 years.

 

[Moxie]

Seems @calitennis127 has abdicated his own thread. That's fine, dude, but then please retire this theory, if you can't defend it.

 

[calitennis127]

Seems @calitennis127 has abdicated his own thread. That's fine, dude, but then please retire this theory, if you can't defend it.

There is no abdication. Is there something wrong with delay for a few days? Goodness gracious.

 

[calitennis127]

I'm combining these two comments for the purposes of my clarity. I want to amend my above in that while I think much of the damage Rafa had done to Roger mentally was done in 2008, I think it became apparent in the fifth set of the AO final. His serve was abandoning him, and he started to get that look like, "I've seen this movie before." You actually brush past that AO, saying that it was "a match that went 5 and which Federer very easily could have won...."

Federer certainly could have won that match. But he also could have very easily won many of his clay matches against Nadal.

That's kind of a meaningless statement. Roger didn't even win that match the hard way. I will give you that basically everyone, and I would include most likely Roger and Rafa, thought Federer would win that match, given esp. the SF that Nadal had played only about 36 hours before.

Don't count me in that group. I thought Nadal would be fine for the final after the Verdasco match, and he was.

So why do you think he lost it? Most would say because Rafa was well in his head.

It was a case of a number of chickens coming home to roost. There was definitely some psychological carryover from what had occurred on other surfaces. But there was also a strategic element, particularly when it came to Federer's return game. He did not mix it up enough by running around the backhand and punishing Nadal's weaker serves. And he hit some utterly pitiful duds when he had breakpoints.

Nadal also brought out his defensive best that day, something he rarely does as much in the Masters events.

I think you're skating past it because it doesn't fit with your Blame Annacone theory.

I am not blaming Annacone for all of Federer's struggles against Nadal. I am blaming Annacone for Federer's struggles against Nadal going from bad to pathetic.

Your point above that Rafa had never straight-setted Fed at a MS1000 before Annacone is factually incorrect. The first time they played was at Miami in 2004, and Rafa won 3 and 3. And Nadal came very close to beating him in Miami in the final in '05 but lucky for Roger the final was still Bo5 then. And he'd beaten him in Dubai, though in 3.

You're right about their first Miami match, but to be honest I don't even look at that as part of their series. I have always thought of it as a sort of exhibition match where they were simply taking cuts and feeling each other's game out for the first time. It didn't involve any X's and O's or adjustments from prior matches. Either way, the fact is they hardly ever played at Masters hard court events until later in their careers. When Annacone was hired in the summer of 2010, Federer and Nadal had only played twice at MS1000 events on hardcourts: Miami 2004 and Miami 2005. The reason for this is that Nadal simply did not make it far enough most of the time for them to play, and the few times that he did (like Madrid 2005 or Indian Wells 2007), Federer unfortunately lost before they could meet.

I am of the opinion that if they had played on hardcourts more often between 2004 and 2008 it would have helped Federer's H2H against Nadal immensely. But Nadal just did not get far enough most of the time for that to take place.

Their H2H at the point that he hired Annacone was already something like 15-7 in Nadal's favor. The mental damage had been done.

Not to the point that Federer should have been getting straight-setted at MS1000 hardcourt events, let alone losing at his best Masters event (Cincinnati) to Nadal.

I'm not sure what exactly you have against Annacone, beyond that you don't much respect him, but I'm also not sure how you lay certain things at his feet. Roger had turned 29 when they started working together, and was 32 when they parted ways.

I think his approach to Nadal during Annacone's tenure gave Nadal far too much respect and was far too modest. It was not aggressive enough. Nothing shows this better than the fact that two of the only times that their matches were close in Nadal's 7 wins were in the clay matches (Madrid 2011 and Roland Garros 2011). And why was that? Because Annacone basically told Federer "you have no chance," so Federer swung for the fences and was far more aggressive. In the hardcourt matches you could see Annacone trying to actually give Federer input on how to work the points and it was entirely disastrous.

Even given Roger's longevity in the game, that was still " late-middle age" in terms of Roger's tennis years.

And here you are, continuing to peddle this inane age nonsense.

Interesting to know about you and Roger. I always thought you were fairly agnostic about Federer.

I loved Federer's game in the early 2000s. I thought he was a Michael Jordan-level talent for tennis. Where I started to turn on him is when I thought he was getting excessive praise for being more perfect than he was. That's why I actually rooted for Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final and 2009 Australian Open final before the pro-Nadal crowd on this board made me turn on him.

Also, after watching Nalbandian closely in 2005, I came to the conclusion that he was actually more talented than Federer and the best player on tour at his highest level. That's why he became my favorite player.

 

[the AntiPusher]

Federer certainly could have won that match. But he also could have very easily won many of his clay matches against Nadal.



Don't count me in that group. I thought Nadal would be fine for the final after the Verdasco match, and he was.



It was a case of a number of chickens coming home to roost. There was definitely some psychological carryover from what had occurred on other surfaces. But there was also a strategic element, particularly when it came to Federer's return game. He did not mix it up enough by running around the backhand and punishing Nadal's weaker serves. And he hit some utterly pitiful duds when he had breakpoints.

Nadal also brought out his defensive best that day, something he rarely does as much in the Masters events.



I am not blaming Annacone for all of Federer's struggles against Nadal. I am blaming Annacone for Federer's struggles against Nadal going from bad to pathetic.



You're right about their first Miami match, but to be honest I don't even look at that as part of their series. I have always thought of it as a sort of exhibition match where they were simply taking cuts and feeling each other's game out for the first time. It didn't involve any X's and O's or adjustments from prior matches. Either way, the fact is they hardly ever played at Masters hard court events until later in their careers. When Annacone was hired in the summer of 2010, Federer and Nadal had only played twice at MS1000 events on hardcourts: Miami 2004 and Miami 2005. The reason for this is that Nadal simply did not make it far enough most of the time for them to play, and the few times that he did (like Madrid 2005 or Indian Wells 2007), Federer unfortunately lost before they could meet.

I am of the opinion that if they had played on hardcourts more often between 2004 and 2008 it would have helped Federer's H2H against Nadal immensely. But Nadal just did not get far enough most of the time for that to take place.



Not to the point that Federer should have been getting straight-setted at MS1000 hardcourt events, let alone losing at his best Masters event (Cincinnati) to Nadal.



I think his approach to Nadal during Annacone's tenure gave Nadal far too much respect and was far too modest. It was not aggressive enough. Nothing shows this better than the fact that two of the only times that their matches were close in Nadal's 7 wins were in the clay matches (Madrid 2011 and Roland Garros 2011). And why was that? Because Annacone basically told Federer "you have no chance," so Federer swung for the fences and was far more aggressive. In the hardcourt matches you could see Annacone trying to actually give Federer input on how to work the points and it was entirely disastrous.



And here you are, continuing to peddle this inane age nonsense.



I loved Federer's game in the early 2000s. I thought he was a Michael Jordan-level talent for tennis. Where I started to turn on him is when I thought he was getting excessive praise for being more perfect than he was. That's why I actually rooted for Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final and 2009 Australian Open final before the pro-Nadal crowd on this board made me turn on him.

Also, after watching Nalbandian closely in 2005, I came to the conclusion that he was actually more talented than Federer and the best player on tour at his highest level. That's why he became my favorite player.

No..it wasn't the pro Nadal sentiment on the board that turned you, it was you couldn't find an ally to support your premise that Nalbandian was BETTER than Federer and Nadal. I liken that to a very similar professor I had at a Big Ten college in regards to Indiana Calbert Chaney from Indiana.This professor would argue that he knew that CC was a BETTER college basketball player than Michael Jordan and would be a better NBA player. I took a senior self study class with the same professor and would listen to his endless rant about how he was Coach Knight's best player.. However, I wasn't foolish and didn't debate with him. I got an A in the course.. However, I get it.. Nalbandian is your ride and die player.

 

[Moxie]

No wonder it took you 10 days to post a response, since this is all you got.

Federer certainly could have won that match. But he also could have very easily won many of his clay matches against Nadal.

Again, this is a meaningless statement. He didn't win it easily, and he didn't win it in the 5th, which they actually played. And I know you've tried to make a case for Roger in 2007 and 2011 at RG, and everyone knows that Rome '05 was a super-tight 5. But to say that Roger could "easily have won many of his clay matches against Nadal" is risible.

Don't count me in that group. I thought Nadal would be fine for the final after the Verdasco match, and he was.

It doesn't really matter that you thought Nadal would be fine for that final. I suggested that Roger didn't think so, (as most of the tennis commentating and viewing world didn't think so, either,) and that it would be a big advantage for Federer. I believe it contributed to his being so disheartened at losing that match, i.e., to Nadal being so firmly in his head from then on. That's just my opinion.

It was a case of a number of chickens coming home to roost. There was definitely some psychological carryover from what had occurred on other surfaces. But there was also a strategic element, particularly when it came to Federer's return game. He did not mix it up enough by running around the backhand and punishing Nadal's weaker serves. And he hit some utterly pitiful duds when he had breakpoints.

Nadal also brought out his defensive best that day, something he rarely does as much in the Masters events.

You can post-game coach him all you want, but it doesn't change how Roger played the match. If this is the basis of your thesis that he could have "easily" won that match, (along with your way of trying to rewrite Djokovic's history at the USO on the other thread,) it's a game of "what if" we could play forever. Reworking a player's strategy is a fool's errand, though it does make you just the man for the job. But tennis is played in the moment, choices made in split seconds, and having and executing a game plan. If Player B didn't do that, all of your "woulda/coulda" is just a pile of broken dreams. Because it also doesn't account for how Player A might have reacted.

As to the bolded above, I'd like to see you defend that. Any number of people, including on this forum, wrongly consider Nadal a mostly defensive player. But that notion comes from him playing consistently great defense.

You're right about their first Miami match, but to be honest I don't even look at that as part of their series. I have always thought of it as a sort of exhibition match where they were simply taking cuts and feeling each other's game out for the first time. It didn't involve any X's and O's or adjustments from prior matches. Either way, the fact is they hardly ever played at Masters hard court events until later in their careers. When Annacone was hired in the summer of 2010, Federer and Nadal had only played twice at MS1000 events on hardcourts: Miami 2004 and Miami 2005. The reason for this is that Nadal simply did not make it far enough most of the time for them to play, and the few times that he did (like Madrid 2005 or Indian Wells 2007), Federer unfortunately lost before they could meet.

I am of the opinion that if they had played on hardcourts more often between 2004 and 2008 it would have helped Federer's H2H against Nadal immensely. But Nadal just did not get far enough most of the time for that to take place.
Not to the point that Federer should have been getting straight-setted at MS1000 hardcourt events, let alone losing at his best Masters event (Cincinnati) to Nadal.

OK, so you're basing a huge thesis on the notion that Nadal shouldn't have won on HCs v. Roger at MS 1000s during the Annacone years, and yet you're willing to ignore the fact that Rafa beat Roger in Miami when he was 17, and chalk that up to an "exhibition." Some might call it a prediction of things to come. One of the MS matches you're so incensed about is Roger losing to Rafa in Miami in 2011, 3 and 2. But Rafa beat him 3 and 3 in 2004. You can't dismiss that as a mere "testing of the waters," just because it doesn't fit your theory. And you're getting very exercised about Roger losing in Cincinnati to Rafa, as if that's so astonishing. He's also lost there to Zverev, Rublev, Karlovic, Murray and Berdych, amongst others.

Sure, you're "of the opinion" that if they'd played more on HCs between '04 and '08, Roger's H2H v Nadal wouldn't be so crap. You, and every Federer fan who ever lived. But that's not a completely fair burden on the young and forming Nadal. (Remembering that Nadal turned 22 mid-way through 2008.) Not so many years later, it was Roger who kept missing the date, so don't lay those early years on Nadal. And yet. Their biggest HC match of all time, and you sort of brush it off. Insist that Roger could have "easily" won it, and move on. Well, he didn't win that match, he didn't win their first match on HC, he lost others and that might just be because Nadal has had his number, even mostly on HCs, Annacone or no. Luckily for Roger, they play some of them indoors, where he excels and Nadal not so much.

I think his approach to Nadal during Annacone's tenure gave Nadal far too much respect and was far too modest. It was not aggressive enough. Nothing shows this better than the fact that two of the only times that their matches were close in Nadal's 7 wins were in the clay matches (Madrid 2011 and Roland Garros 2011). And why was that? Because Annacone basically told Federer "you have no chance," so Federer swung for the fences and was far more aggressive. In the hardcourt matches you could see Annacone trying to actually give Federer input on how to work the points and it was entirely disastrous.

Do you actually believe that Annacone's coaching strategy was "You have no chance?" LOL.

And here you are, continuing to peddle this inane age nonsense.

I loved Federer's game in the early 2000s. I thought he was a Michael Jordan-level talent for tennis. Where I started to turn on him is when I thought he was getting excessive praise for being more perfect than he was. That's why I actually rooted for Nadal in the 2008 Wimbledon final and 2009 Australian Open final before the pro-Nadal crowd on this board made me turn on him.

Also, after watching Nalbandian closely in 2005, I came to the conclusion that he was actually more talented than Federer and the best player on tour at his highest level. That's why he became my favorite player.

I'm not "peddling" anything about age; unlike you, I don't have a "theory" about age. I merely believe that it exists, and that it comes with advantages and disadvantages, including to athletes. My point about Roger being 29 when Annacone came on board wasn't that it had so much to do with his dry spells as that his game was well formed and entrenched when Annacone started coaching him. And Rafa was already well in his head and his game.

It's hard to imagine that you were ever as passionate a fan of Roger as you have been of King David, otherwise you'd never have left him. But that's cool. We have at least a couple of members who switched from Roger/Rafa to Novak when he went 2.0, and are much more passionate about him than they were about their previous faves.

It's also all-but-impossible that you were ever a fan of Rafa's, given how you have claimed for years that he has no talent for tennis, and given your narrow definition of it, and how much it means to you, even just based on the above. You've taken to saying of late that it's the fans on this (and the old) forums that turned you against him, but you've always been dismissive of his game around here. Though I can buy if you were rooting against Roger in those specific matches.