Something's been bothering me about Roger Federer and the French Open since the final on Sunday, and the other day I finally put my finger on it. I think Roger needs a coach - not because I think he would have taken out Rafael Nadal, 2-2-3 if he had one, but because going without one these days isn't gallant or old-school or classy as much as baffling or even silly. It's less a statement of how great and confident you are than of how disinterested you are in being even greater and more confident.
Now hold it before you fire up the angry comments. What I just wrote does not really apply to Federer because what he is - I hope,for his sake - is not coachless but between coaches. He only fired Tony Roche a few weeks ago. Still, I get the feeling from some of the comments here(and elsewhere), that many people think it's some kind of badge of honor to go coachless - The Mighty Fed's way of sending the message: Man, I am so danged gifted and capable - so on top of the game, and everyone in it, that I don't need whatever it is that all those other guys are getting from their coaches. I like cutting up my own food, thank you very much!
In a way, I believe TMF has been coachless for some time now, and from what I've heard and read about the lack of communication between Tony and Roger, he's been without one for while. In review, I'm not even sure Tony qualified as a top coach to a top player by today's barometer. I've got all the respect in the world for Roche, but let's face some facts: Roche is over twice Roger's age. He's almost the model product of a no-nonsense, just throw the ball up and give 'er a whack, for gosh sakes! era and culture (in other words, he uses the pre-Sopranos definition of the verb, "to whack"), and he's not only hit a gazillion balls, he's also watched countless players hit a gazillion balls, as a player, coach, Davis Cup co-captain and, for all I know, tennis director on a cruise ship.
I had the distinct impression over the last two years that the fire for tennis in Tony's belly went out a long time ago. Occasionally, he would blow on the embers and some of the burning fragments would work their way up to his mind and out through his mouth. But Tony seemed to be rolling with it - happy to help Roger in any way the boy needed, and help I'm sure he did. But it never seemed like he was sitting up nights, surfing the web to find innovative ways to un-lock the secrets of the contemporary game. And TMF, being on top of his game and a gentleman who respects his icons to boot, didn't expect him to do that. Although this seemed destined to end with them turning to each other simultaneously and asking, So what the hail, exactly, are you doing here?
Everyone loved the Tony and Roger pairing; they had about them the aura of a "feel good story" married to counter-intuitive "feel perverse" appeal. Somehow, the presence of this old-school Aussie icon translated to an endorsement of Federer as the Deity's apprentice, and to hail with the X's an O's. I think the engine driving the pairing was sentiment, rather than common sense.
If you think I'm being overly critical of Roche here, keep in mind that I have more respect for Tony because of all this. I'd hate to have seen him in his dotage, running down the hall in Rod Laver Arena with an arm full of racquets, in a panic to find more Luxilon. He's a good man and distinguished man, who appeared to have no desire and certainly no need to kowtow to anyone, including TMF - the only trouble being that part of a coach's job is kowtowing. Sounds terrible, but the money ain't half bad and, as I understand it, Tony's unwillingness to drop everything at a moment's notice when Roger called had a lot to do with their parting.
But the larger issue here is whether or not Federer needs a coach, and the answer is, of course he does, unless his whole point is to prove the opposite,which would be a curiously abstract exercise and a dumb one to boot. He needs a coach the same way you and I need two eyes, even though we can appreciate a sunset with just one, or why even a great writer can really benefit from having a great editor. You can get by without one, but why should you>
Mulling over Roger's options, I made a short list, and then I whittled that one down, too. Who would be the ideal coach for TMF? The answer I came up with is, Paul Annacone. Here are my reasons:
1 - Pete Sampras says he's a great coach.
2 - Annacone coached the man (Sampras) whose Grand Slam title record Federer is hoping to shatter, so it's not like Paul is unfamiliar with the terrain. And he coached him through the toughest part of Sampras's long slog to immortality.
3 - Paul, who was one of the last chip-and-charge players on the tour, knows the attacking game cold, and that's territory Roger hasn't fully explored.
4 - He's got a relaxed, poised manner and he brings no "Ugly American" baggage to the table.
5 - Paul has very need or desire for attention; he showed that when he guided Pete for a solid year (while Sampras's "official" coach, Tim Gullickson, fought a losing battle with brain cancer) and never once took credit for Pete's results.
6 - Paul is close enough in age to TMF for the two to have a lot in common, tennis and otherwise.
7 - Tim Henman can't last forever (although I sure hope he's got a good next three-and-a-half weeks in him).
So I picked up the telephone and called Paul, who's presently in London with Henman. And don't despair, Henman fans, Annacone believes Henman is striking the ball as well as ever, the results just haven't reflected that for reasons beyond our pale. Paul has his hands full with Henman and his consultancy with the British LTA, but he was happy to talk. We've been friends for a long time.
When I asked Paul if he thought TMF needed a coach, he said:
I guess you can say Federer knows his opponents cold, but I have to figure that he isn't out there, closely watching the guy he's going to play next. Or sitting down to a pleasant, mellow dinner with a friend who just watched that guy, and noticed a few tendencies. . .
Paul went on:
Now, with Nadal taking his measure and Novak Djokovic coming on like gangbusters, Roger is potentially facing that kind of moment. He's dominated for over three years now, but nothing stands still. TMF may get through an entire career on cruise-control, but most champions, including the very best ones, never did. The difference between the great ones and indomitable ones is climbing the steps high above the abyss on either side, getting above everyone else, and then taking those next few small, agonizing steps - without benefit of a handrail. In a way, it represents a re-dedication and re-commitment. And those who take those final steps are alway glad they did.
So what can a coach bring to TMF's table; what can he tell Roger that Roger himself doesn't already know? What would be the secret to having a mutually satisfying relationship with Federer that wouldn't involve an high-stakes game of Who's In Charge Here, Anyway? This is what Annacone learned:
Annacone has ideas about Federer and his game. He thinks TMF is like Sampras in another way:
Each of them is capable of playing different styles at the highest level. But, because they are almost always better than their opponent, they have a tendency to revert back to the mind-set, "I'm better so I'll be able to get that one extra ball back, most of the time." The trick for Federer against, say, Nadal, is to figure out when to play which way, instead of just trusting his confidence. But because a Roger or Pete is so comfortable wining as he usually does, it goes against the grain to say, "I'll do it this way this time." They never had to do it differently before, why should they have to start now? The thing a coach has to do is get the player to buy into this because it's an asset and a strength, not a sign of compromise.
Watching the Roland Garros final, Annacone felt that TMF made an unusually high number of errors because he was lured into playing the game that Nadal, the ultimate defender, prefers. He's been down that road before, with Sampras, and he explained his thinking this way:
