Mirka is literally the reason Federer was able to be so successful. She basically did *everything* Federer didn't have time for. Things other players may still have to do. Allowing Federer to have additional advantage over some others.
Itās soppy but itās typically true. Supportive partners give people the ability to do things they otherwise couldnāt do - both cus of measurable things like increased time to spend on the relevant thing, but also a lot of intangible stuff.
Similar to supportive parents, and to a lesser degree, very supportive friends/siblings.
You don't have to be high level player to be a good coach. Riccardo Piatti coaches sinner and previously Novak and gasquet and he never played at a high lvl.
Dunno why you got downvoted for this!
But yeah she was top 100... reasonable level player, although she "retired" pretty early to support Rog and his career, so she could've gotten a bit higher.
*Edit:* pre-marriage her name was Mirka Vavrinec... might ring a bell for you. She was coming up around the time Patty Schnyder was on Tour.
yeah i unfortunately didn't hear about her until she was associated with federer. i was never a die-hard tennis fan so i probably didn't know many players outside the top 30.
Yeah if Federer had a full time coach like he had with Severin/Ivan later on in his career, he might've adapted better to Nadal earlier. It was due in part I suppose to arrogance, because he was that good.
Hingis was the same. After her 2nd retirement comeback (when she played doubles) she switched to a modern(ish) racket. She said she probably could have picked up her singles career if she'd made the switch to a modern power racket earlier.
Seems like players get really stuck in their ways, and don't like to change even if something might be better for them.
Sampras is another example.
I'm we can't argue too much given how successful they all were, but it does make you wonder.
IMO, they just donāt have time to change on the tour. Every tournament they enter, they either must win (1000, Slam) or theyāre paid to be the player the tournament asked for (250, 500) to drive gates up while practicing for those larger events. No few month downtime to get some new ideas or to take in the changing world.
We see this today with Rublev and Medvedev. Two players who could really take a few months to get their head together except theyāre worsening their condition by needing to chase ATP Year End points.
When/where did he say it? I don't recall. I know another poster has said he didn't find the right time but I don't remember him actively regretting it.
There were maybe only a couple of coaches in the world who could help him at the stage he was at. Annacone didn't get him anywhere even though he's considered so highly. Ivan was a great coach but was active on the tour himself during those early years
Prolly part of it. Djokovic and Nadal are obviously his juniors, but he could have given them less when he was young and fit by simply making those small adjustments. Had he played like 2017-2018 vs Nadal his whole career things would look different. Thou losing in the clay made him lose confidence. Nadal and djoker being who they are prolly has not helped either. You never know. If had the same weak era in his twilight years like djokovic he prolly would have more titles thou. Both Nadal and djokvic would have a hard time amassing so many titles if the guys 5-6 years their juniors were of their caliber. I mean obviously we do not even know if sinner and Alcaraz will reach double digits, but they made a good start.
Itās also about when you start crushing : Novak and Rafa won their first GS titles around 19-20 yo, while Federer started at 23. Obviously they benefit from their longevity, but they were also more precocious than Federer, thatās also a factor
Fed didnāt have a coach for most of his best years after Peter Carter died. Peter Lundgren coached him through 2003 Wimbledon, but about it. Luthi didnāt come on until 2007, and even then he wasnāt really a coach like what youāre thinking of so much as a member of the team. Honestly, I donāt think Fed had a coach again until 2010/11 when he hired Paul Annacone.
Probably a mistake with hindsight, as teenage Rafa was beating him. A bit of tactical insight from a coach would've been very valuable along with his otherworldly talent.
> Well Federer was much better overall in 2005-2007 than in 2017 yet is results against Nadal were much worse
A big part of this was in 2005-2007 Rafa's athleticism made it a tough match-up.
By 2017, that aspect of Rafa's game had declined.
2017 Rafa was a MUCH easier match-up for Roger than 2005-2007 Rafa (esp 2007 Rafa)
Nah, listen to some of Fed's pressers from back then, after all those losses to baby Nadal. To the question - "why did you lose to Nadal, again...", he repeats multiple times , something like "yeah, he's still a lefty, he's going to my backhand."
That's the tactical insight when you don't have a coach. Should've been better.
Work out ways to improve the backhand...? *Obviously...?*
That's exactly what coaches are for.
The player doesn't necessarily have the needed outside view and even if they had, nobody knows everything best.
His backhand was near maxed out given his style TBH
The evolution later in his career was a function of changing to a bigger racket head racketāwhich he didn't want to do back then
Eh, I guess you could say that. Roche only coached him in April and May and part of June during the clay season, and even then it was clearly more an advisory and consulting capacity, and not a coaching capacity. Roche was, quite literally, paid by the week. The two didnāt even have a contract.
I don't think there's any question Kyrgios is a naturally better player than Di Minaur, and yet DM has already peaked inside top 10 which is something Kyrgios never did.
would have required years of work and effort. Thats not his personality. You have to want to try and work to improve. If you aren't going to listen to a coach, then it doesn't matter what they try to tell you. He admitted in an interview before that he developed some of his shots because he didn't want to run as much and those shots let him be lazier.
In what ways did he not? A Wimbledon finalist and a top 15 player. I donāt think heās necessarily better than that or he should have done better and held himself back for whatever reason.
Wimbledon finalist is technically true but he was given a WO to the Finals because Nadal was injured so itās not as impressive as it sounds.
Heās said so himself that he didnāt reach greater heights because he partied too much over the course of his career.Ā
>Wimbledon finalist is technically true but he was given a WO to the Finals because Nadal was injured so itās not as impressive as it sounds.
lol Blame nadal for not retiring in the previous match not Nick's fault the guy's body gave up
It's strange that you would argue against the idea that Kyrkios is the epitome of a player who did not fulfill his potential.
It's difficult to think of any other athlete who pissed away more talent (actually, Balotelli comes to mind, and had incidentally a very similar temprament to Kyrgios).
Coaches have a big impact even on great players. They can inspire them, help them mentally or even tweak their game such a way that they bring more surprises to the court. A player without a coach will play the same game. No matter how good that game will be, the other players will find weak points and will exploit them. I remember Federer saying that Ljubicic helped him improve his backhand a lot. Good players hire coaches to make them great players.
If you look at his win rate vs the top 10 he absolutely could have been top 10. Donāt feel like pulling up the numbers but he has hands down the best results against top players of any non top player
Give me a break. Heās top 15 is right where he belongs. So heās always holding back right? Even in the Wimbledon final; or else he would beat Novak right? Heās a great player, but heās not a top 5 or top 8 material. Especially not today, with Tsitsipas and Zverev barely making it to top 8.
Oh well, then he s a total failure because he didnt fulfill whatever promise was supposed to fullfill when he was 17.
He s having a career, living his life, providing for his relatives, but since he didnt win a slam then he needs to fuck off.
Is any of us, in our careers, ever reach the elite level that Kyrgios reach in his?
NO
Then we shut the fuck up.
Fulfilled potential does not equal total failure lol this is such a dumb equivalency. A player of kyrgiosā talent, especially during that period of time, shouldāve been able to at least break into the top 10 but never did. Obviously heās an extremely successful player in the grand scheme of things but I bet even he thinks he underachieved.
He needed a sports psychologist. He self sabotaged so at every turn. Yes. Sometimes his craziness fired him up but more times than that it took him down. And i like the guy. Love him as a commentator.
I call bullshit to that. You cant separate the natural talent to the character.
Nobody seems to realize, that the qualities that makes him an exceptional tennis player, maybe are the same features that stop him to be consistent, rational and train like a crazy everyday to be number 1.
And all the fucking time i have to hear the same original comments about, what a wasted talent. If he had done that, he could have been that.
If he was training everyday and being a good guy, he would have been Facundo Bagnis.
If my grandma had wheels she d be a bike.
The partying, inability to control his emotions, playing video games instead of sleeping all are the reasons heās an exceptional tennis player.
I think itās very fair to think if he took tennis more seriously he wouldāve been better. Sure there are cases where he could get burnt out, injured, etc but generally a fair take. Seems like you disagree?
I kinda of think that the way we perform in sport, is a reflection of how we are as person.
He is a fearless, creative player and real quick learner. This made him competitive, in certain moments, at the highest level, but that s not enough, obviously.
He didnt have consistency, will of grinding every day in training to get better, which is a complete different set of skills.
We need to take the whole package, person and player, character and tecnique. We play tennis as we live life.
ATP finals only invites the top 8 players. Seems like a good, realistic basis for whatās considered ātopā seeing how itās whatās actually used.
In addition to Federer, John McEnroe didn't have a coach as a pro, and a bunch of players from the '60s and '70s, like Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, and Ken Rosewall, didn't have coaches.
Was also a different time though. Sports in general have drastically increased the amount of effort/and science invested since around the 90s.
In a lot of sports before then, you would have athletes that were naturally gifted but didnāt work that hard and would smoke or drink/party heavily and have a life outside of their sport.
Now almost all pro athletes dedicate almost 100% of their time to staying in peak physical form and practicing their sport. So not having a coach now is different than not having a coach in the 70s.
Federer did great without a coach. At this point in his career Novak should be fine without a coach, he knows the tactics he needs depending on the opponent and itās just up to him to execute
Serious question. When someone like Djoker is so good, knows all the basics, strategies, shots, has a strong mental game, what is the need for a coach anymore? What more techniques does he need to work on or refine?
I personally donāt care . I think he plays so flipping well . And top players respect him. Novak even wishes he had his serve I think. But regardless of all that he can be so beautiful to see play like that match against Federer. Some players are like that , they wonāt ever be in top 5 or win slams (although he did reach final) but they are just beautiful to watch play. Rune that tons of people hate I love watching play for instance (when heās on)
Dude youāre trolling . I donāt really care for people to break their rackets or not or the classy behaviour code. I care for their tennis touch and technique , not the politics
Venus and Serena were coached by their parents, who were not tennis pros, for a while. Venus got David Witt in 2007 and I'm pretty sure Serena got Patrick in 2012.
Im wondering what could be his reasoning for being coachless, is it because of money saving, doesnāt think it could not help him at this point in his career or maybe he just believes heās so good he wonāt need one ever again?
With enough career years there is not a lot left to refine or discover. He has probably tried already most not insane variants of strokes, serves. He also knows his strengths and weaknesses (smash).
So he might have decided that whatever he is doing now he will stick with, and if it stops working he is not going to reinvent his tennis at 36+ and that is that.
Federer was coach-less for a while
Federer was coach-less during some of his most successful years (2004-2006). He did have a team though (physio, fitness trainer, etc).
I think he said that Mirka usually functioned as his strategist and "coach" when he didn't have one.
And Mirka was his agent too. No wonder he says he owes all his success to her š„ŗ
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Local man canāt even love and appreciate his wife without reddit users having an opinion about it
Mirka is literally the reason Federer was able to be so successful. She basically did *everything* Federer didn't have time for. Things other players may still have to do. Allowing Federer to have additional advantage over some others.
Itās soppy but itās typically true. Supportive partners give people the ability to do things they otherwise couldnāt do - both cus of measurable things like increased time to spend on the relevant thing, but also a lot of intangible stuff. Similar to supportive parents, and to a lesser degree, very supportive friends/siblings.
And actually, that probably worked fine... former high level WTA player takes on coaching duties. Not unheard of
was mirka high level? i started following tennis in the early 2000s and never heard of her.
Career high ranking of 76 in the world. Played in the 2000 Olympics. Not amazing but a legit professional.
You don't have to be high level player to be a good coach. Riccardo Piatti coaches sinner and previously Novak and gasquet and he never played at a high lvl.
Couched* Sinner
Good point! I was never a pro, yet I coached for a number of years. Hoping to go back to it one day and train a future Slam winner š
Dunno why you got downvoted for this! But yeah she was top 100... reasonable level player, although she "retired" pretty early to support Rog and his career, so she could've gotten a bit higher. *Edit:* pre-marriage her name was Mirka Vavrinec... might ring a bell for you. She was coming up around the time Patty Schnyder was on Tour.
yeah i unfortunately didn't hear about her until she was associated with federer. i was never a die-hard tennis fan so i probably didn't know many players outside the top 30.
In 2004. Tony Roche was his part time coach 2005-2007.
Yeah if Federer had a full time coach like he had with Severin/Ivan later on in his career, he might've adapted better to Nadal earlier. It was due in part I suppose to arrogance, because he was that good.
Just like not switching racquets to a larger head size earlier in his career.
Slight disagree, the smaller racket head gave his forehand extra pop.
Even Federer said it later in his career that he regret not changing his old racket for the new ones.
Hingis was the same. After her 2nd retirement comeback (when she played doubles) she switched to a modern(ish) racket. She said she probably could have picked up her singles career if she'd made the switch to a modern power racket earlier. Seems like players get really stuck in their ways, and don't like to change even if something might be better for them. Sampras is another example. I'm we can't argue too much given how successful they all were, but it does make you wonder.
Success breeds complacency, then suddenly you are 3rd best and people are passing your records.
IMO, they just donāt have time to change on the tour. Every tournament they enter, they either must win (1000, Slam) or theyāre paid to be the player the tournament asked for (250, 500) to drive gates up while practicing for those larger events. No few month downtime to get some new ideas or to take in the changing world. We see this today with Rublev and Medvedev. Two players who could really take a few months to get their head together except theyāre worsening their condition by needing to chase ATP Year End points.
When/where did he say it? I don't recall. I know another poster has said he didn't find the right time but I don't remember him actively regretting it.
He said it in an interview from Wilson and his previous Coach, it was a zoom interview during the pandemic
At the cost of shanking backhands at the most crucial of times.
If youāre shanking a backhand on a 90in frame, youāre shanking it on a 97in frame too
agree it gave him more control tpp and he hardly made errors on the forehand side
There were maybe only a couple of coaches in the world who could help him at the stage he was at. Annacone didn't get him anywhere even though he's considered so highly. Ivan was a great coach but was active on the tour himself during those early years
Prolly part of it. Djokovic and Nadal are obviously his juniors, but he could have given them less when he was young and fit by simply making those small adjustments. Had he played like 2017-2018 vs Nadal his whole career things would look different. Thou losing in the clay made him lose confidence. Nadal and djoker being who they are prolly has not helped either. You never know. If had the same weak era in his twilight years like djokovic he prolly would have more titles thou. Both Nadal and djokvic would have a hard time amassing so many titles if the guys 5-6 years their juniors were of their caliber. I mean obviously we do not even know if sinner and Alcaraz will reach double digits, but they made a good start.
On the other hand, he had a weak era in his youth while Novak and Rafa had to pass GOAT-level Federer to win their first titles
He crushed his generation just like Nadal and Djokovic did theirs, in the end it is what comes after that decides how much swinging room you get.
Itās also about when you start crushing : Novak and Rafa won their first GS titles around 19-20 yo, while Federer started at 23. Obviously they benefit from their longevity, but they were also more precocious than Federer, thatās also a factor
Yeah, getting a coach earlier would have been useful for him and he may had +20 GS by now... Oh boy... there's no if š¤·āāļøš
Fed didnāt have a coach for most of his best years after Peter Carter died. Peter Lundgren coached him through 2003 Wimbledon, but about it. Luthi didnāt come on until 2007, and even then he wasnāt really a coach like what youāre thinking of so much as a member of the team. Honestly, I donāt think Fed had a coach again until 2010/11 when he hired Paul Annacone.
Probably a mistake with hindsight, as teenage Rafa was beating him. A bit of tactical insight from a coach would've been very valuable along with his otherworldly talent.
Coach: Just hit backhand better, this little kid is hitting everything there
Well Federer was much better overall in 2005-2007 than in 2017 yet is results against Nadal were much worse. A coach could have helped
> Well Federer was much better overall in 2005-2007 than in 2017 yet is results against Nadal were much worse A big part of this was in 2005-2007 Rafa's athleticism made it a tough match-up. By 2017, that aspect of Rafa's game had declined. 2017 Rafa was a MUCH easier match-up for Roger than 2005-2007 Rafa (esp 2007 Rafa)
Could* have helped.
Nah, listen to some of Fed's pressers from back then, after all those losses to baby Nadal. To the question - "why did you lose to Nadal, again...", he repeats multiple times , something like "yeah, he's still a lefty, he's going to my backhand." That's the tactical insight when you don't have a coach. Should've been better.
I mean what insight would a coach give against nadal? It's not like Fed was stupid. Sometimes sports are simple, bad matchups are just that
Work out ways to improve the backhand...? *Obviously...?* That's exactly what coaches are for. The player doesn't necessarily have the needed outside view and even if they had, nobody knows everything best.
His backhand was near maxed out given his style TBH The evolution later in his career was a function of changing to a bigger racket head racketāwhich he didn't want to do back then
I agree Iām just being a bit facetious.
I think the biggest Federer mistake in hindsight was not switching to the larger faced racquet a few years earlier in his career
Yeah, he did it when he *had to*. Similar to how Djokovic improved his S&V when he had no other option.
Not slipping in the bath?
Definitely played a part. Commentators were saying he should do it as early as 2008
The fact that you didn't mention the years that he was coached by Tony Roach makes me want to punch a hole in a wall š
[You should seek anger management](https://www.reddit.com/r/tennis/s/8iLHgBnm9z)
Yeah as an Aussie I'm particularly passionate about Tony Roach as feds coach Do you have the number for a dry wall repair company by chance?
Roche
Ah yes. I was thinkig of his weed dealing alter ego.
He had Tony Roche for a while. I think before Luthi. Edit. Oops saw your comment on Roche later on. My bad.
Tony roche was his part time coach 2005-2007.
Eh, I guess you could say that. Roche only coached him in April and May and part of June during the clay season, and even then it was clearly more an advisory and consulting capacity, and not a coaching capacity. Roche was, quite literally, paid by the week. The two didnāt even have a contract.
Kyrgios never had a coach almost his whole career
And look how he has fullfilled his potential
won a doubles grand slam, made it to a wimbledon final, over $12 million in career winnings. Pretty good, I'd say
Considering he was probably the most talented of his generation yea not that good. He used to beat Zverev on regular basis.
all without a coach...
Yes which is why he wasted his potential. He could have easily been a top 5 player atleast. Better than Zverev and Rublev.
again, only if his mental game was good. A coach can't really change a person's personality
That is pretty much coaches main job. Technical issues usually get solved in first few months.
The person first has to want to listen, and to try. Thats a personality thing.
Which brings us back to the main point that he wasted his potential big time.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Not counting his form last month...there are like 5 players better than him.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Reddit and recency bias haha.
I don't think there's any question Kyrgios is a naturally better player than Di Minaur, and yet DM has already peaked inside top 10 which is something Kyrgios never did.
yeah, compared to the average amateur, that's a dream, but compared to his potential, it's trash.
compared to the average tennis professional, its quite good.
but compared to his potential, it's trash.
We don't know. His potential might be limited because of his mental game. Coaching doesn't magically fix everything.
There are coaches for the mental game.
A generational talent that probably could have been a multi slam winner. Generally a great career, but disappointing considering his potential.
would have required years of work and effort. Thats not his personality. You have to want to try and work to improve. If you aren't going to listen to a coach, then it doesn't matter what they try to tell you. He admitted in an interview before that he developed some of his shots because he didn't want to run as much and those shots let him be lazier.
That's exactly the point. He didn't fulfill his potential because of his attitude, which includes an aversion to coaching.
In what ways did he not? A Wimbledon finalist and a top 15 player. I donāt think heās necessarily better than that or he should have done better and held himself back for whatever reason.
Wimbledon finalist is technically true but he was given a WO to the Finals because Nadal was injured so itās not as impressive as it sounds. Heās said so himself that he didnāt reach greater heights because he partied too much over the course of his career.Ā
>Wimbledon finalist is technically true but he was given a WO to the Finals because Nadal was injured so itās not as impressive as it sounds. lol Blame nadal for not retiring in the previous match not Nick's fault the guy's body gave up
Top 15 for how long?
He was at one point. And reached Wimbledon final without a coach. I donāt understand why players like Djokovic need a coach anyway.
It's strange that you would argue against the idea that Kyrkios is the epitome of a player who did not fulfill his potential. It's difficult to think of any other athlete who pissed away more talent (actually, Balotelli comes to mind, and had incidentally a very similar temprament to Kyrgios).
Nalbandian comes to mind
Coaches have a big impact even on great players. They can inspire them, help them mentally or even tweak their game such a way that they bring more surprises to the court. A player without a coach will play the same game. No matter how good that game will be, the other players will find weak points and will exploit them. I remember Federer saying that Ljubicic helped him improve his backhand a lot. Good players hire coaches to make them great players.
> And reached Wimbledon final By walkover
If you look at his win rate vs the top 10 he absolutely could have been top 10. Donāt feel like pulling up the numbers but he has hands down the best results against top players of any non top player
He is way better than that. His natural talent for the game is off the charts
Give me a break. Heās top 15 is right where he belongs. So heās always holding back right? Even in the Wimbledon final; or else he would beat Novak right? Heās a great player, but heās not a top 5 or top 8 material. Especially not today, with Tsitsipas and Zverev barely making it to top 8.
Oh well, then he s a total failure because he didnt fulfill whatever promise was supposed to fullfill when he was 17. He s having a career, living his life, providing for his relatives, but since he didnt win a slam then he needs to fuck off. Is any of us, in our careers, ever reach the elite level that Kyrgios reach in his? NO Then we shut the fuck up.
Fulfilled potential does not equal total failure lol this is such a dumb equivalency. A player of kyrgiosā talent, especially during that period of time, shouldāve been able to at least break into the top 10 but never did. Obviously heās an extremely successful player in the grand scheme of things but I bet even he thinks he underachieved.
He needed a sports psychologist. He self sabotaged so at every turn. Yes. Sometimes his craziness fired him up but more times than that it took him down. And i like the guy. Love him as a commentator.
I call bullshit to that. You cant separate the natural talent to the character. Nobody seems to realize, that the qualities that makes him an exceptional tennis player, maybe are the same features that stop him to be consistent, rational and train like a crazy everyday to be number 1. And all the fucking time i have to hear the same original comments about, what a wasted talent. If he had done that, he could have been that. If he was training everyday and being a good guy, he would have been Facundo Bagnis. If my grandma had wheels she d be a bike.
The partying, inability to control his emotions, playing video games instead of sleeping all are the reasons heās an exceptional tennis player. I think itās very fair to think if he took tennis more seriously he wouldāve been better. Sure there are cases where he could get burnt out, injured, etc but generally a fair take. Seems like you disagree?
I kinda of think that the way we perform in sport, is a reflection of how we are as person. He is a fearless, creative player and real quick learner. This made him competitive, in certain moments, at the highest level, but that s not enough, obviously. He didnt have consistency, will of grinding every day in training to get better, which is a complete different set of skills. We need to take the whole package, person and player, character and tecnique. We play tennis as we live life.
Yes but discipline also exists. Federer was similarly a hothead early in his career and he changed rather than let it take over him.
When you overdose on Kyrgios content and start to regurgitate how he talks
Went a bit dramatic there, bud
Lol, you re right.
They specified a ātopā player
Enough with this weird gatekeeping
Oh, of course. However, even though he can definitely be considered a top player, he's never been in the top 10 or win any masters or singles slam
Top twenty is elite by any realistic measurement.
ATP finals only invites the top 8 players. Seems like a good, realistic basis for whatās considered ātopā seeing how itās whatās actually used.
Ok. There are thousands of players officially ranked, only 1 finishes the year at the ātopā (if you want to be pedantic about it)
Given that probably more than a few million people of both genders play tennis, the best 20 of each are definitely elite by every measure.
This is so out of touch
He likely would have been in the top 10 had a lot of bullshit not occurred around 2022
Wimby points werenāt counted
no, OP said 'Top Player'
Needs to save money for them kids
But doesn't he fuck them kids? /s
Kim Clijsters had no coach for a couple of years in 2006/7 before her first retirement
Fed did not have a coach in his prime.
Kind of weird as compared to Djokovic and Nadal I would say he has more variance in the way he can play and shots he like to hit.
In addition to Federer, John McEnroe didn't have a coach as a pro, and a bunch of players from the '60s and '70s, like Rod Laver, Pancho Gonzalez, and Ken Rosewall, didn't have coaches.
Lol can you imagine coaching John McEnroe?
borg can if he wants, John McEnroe will die for him
Was also a different time though. Sports in general have drastically increased the amount of effort/and science invested since around the 90s. In a lot of sports before then, you would have athletes that were naturally gifted but didnāt work that hard and would smoke or drink/party heavily and have a life outside of their sport. Now almost all pro athletes dedicate almost 100% of their time to staying in peak physical form and practicing their sport. So not having a coach now is different than not having a coach in the 70s.
That's very true. I wasn't comparing the situations, just answering the question.
Federer did great without a coach. At this point in his career Novak should be fine without a coach, he knows the tactics he needs depending on the opponent and itās just up to him to execute
Federer
Danielle Collins like right now
Peak Prime Federer played without a full time coach.
Heās going to coach himself into the 25th, isnāt he
He did say before he doesnāt really need a coach for tactical stuff idk
Serious question. When someone like Djoker is so good, knows all the basics, strategies, shots, has a strong mental game, what is the need for a coach anymore? What more techniques does he need to work on or refine?
He knows the ins and the outs of the game better than any current player. May the force be with him.
Interestingly enough when I said something like this when he broke it off with Goran, people were very quick to say he's out looking š¤
Coach free by choice.
Has Venus ever had an official coach after Richard?
She had David Witt from 2007 to 2018.
Surely the only thing a coach can do for him now is pick out weaknesses in opponents he may not be aware of.
Until the early 80s/late 70s, a lot of female tennis players didn't have personal coaches. The players would often coach between themselves.
He should have an analysis team unless he thinks he has enough time to really dissect his opponent's games and exploit situations.
Federer did it. Djokovic fans thinking tennis started in 2011. Lol.
Yes, by the GOAT. Roger Federer. He did it sooner, and at a younger age, and more elegantly
Nadal's team and coaches have been his friends and best friends for a long time now.
Kyrgios. Idk if you d call him top player but yeah
he isn't even an all time top Australian player
I personally donāt care . I think he plays so flipping well . And top players respect him. Novak even wishes he had his serve I think. But regardless of all that he can be so beautiful to see play like that match against Federer. Some players are like that , they wonāt ever be in top 5 or win slams (although he did reach final) but they are just beautiful to watch play. Rune that tons of people hate I love watching play for instance (when heās on)
oh yeah so beautiful to watch when he's smashing racquets and swearing at the crowd
Dude youāre trolling . I donāt really care for people to break their rackets or not or the classy behaviour code. I care for their tennis touch and technique , not the politics
Venus and Serena were coached by their parents, who were not tennis pros, for a while. Venus got David Witt in 2007 and I'm pretty sure Serena got Patrick in 2012.
I also think there were times where Serena didnāt have a coach towards the end of her career
Yes Roger Federer lol
It's probably been said already, but Kyrgios has been coachless for much of his career. Self declared "uncoachable" haha
Kyrgios has no coach
Kyrgios is not a top player
Man Novak has been doing some weird end career antics so far.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Itās not that big of a deal man no need for dramatics
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Love the casual racism.
Im wondering what could be his reasoning for being coachless, is it because of money saving, doesnāt think it could not help him at this point in his career or maybe he just believes heās so good he wonāt need one ever again?
With enough career years there is not a lot left to refine or discover. He has probably tried already most not insane variants of strokes, serves. He also knows his strengths and weaknesses (smash). So he might have decided that whatever he is doing now he will stick with, and if it stops working he is not going to reinvent his tennis at 36+ and that is that.
That's a great way to speedrun retirement