In Shanghai last year, back when Roger Federer was still invincible, a few reporters sat down with the world no. 1 after he put the finishing touches on his second straight Masters Cup title. He had reached the final of the French Open, won Wimbledon, won the U.S. Open, and now the season-ending event, all after parting ways with Tony Roche in the middle of the clay court season. Among the questions asked, not surprisingly, was whether he would hire a coach and if so, when?
"I'm thinking about it probably next week and then also on my vacation," Federer said at the time. "The next three weeks I think will be crucial for me for my decision making. If I'm going contact somebody, I don’t know. Until now I've said, 'What do I really need? OK, later on. What do I need? Later on. I've just been concentrating on playing and winning. The moment when you split with somebody you get—whoop!—mailbox is full, and you're like, I'm not going to take now a decision like this. But I'd rather have a coach sooner than later. Why not? That's what I'm saying. If it's the end of the year, next year, I don't know."
The key phrase for me is, "Why not?" After that Masters Cup tournament, observers could have rightly asked, "Why bother?" Before he hired Roche, after he hired Roche, and after he split with Roche, Federer won just as often. Has there ever been a player less in need of a coach up to this point in his career? What amounts to a slump, by his standards, in recent months likely has more to do with mono and a lack of practice and training than some shortage of sage advice. Still, one can't disagree with Federer's reasoning back in November: "Why not?" Hiring a coach certainly couldn't hurt.
I thought for sure that Federer would have named a new part-time mentor (he's not interested in someone who follows him everywhere) before this season began, so he would have time to gel with his new partner during his two chief training sessions in Dubai (before and after the Australian Open). It took him a bit longer, perhaps because his bout with mono curtailed both sessions and left him with other worries. Whatever the reason for the wait, two things come to mind: 1) I'm not convinced that this is a response to Federer's recent slump, as he was clearly in the market for a coach last year, and 2) the wait was worth it.
As all of you know by now, Jose Higueras, the Spaniard who helped Jim Courier, Michael Chang, and Pete Sampras, among others, build fine careers (and win several French Open titles) is with Federer in Estoril this week. Federer and Higueras are not an official team just yet; their week together has been deemed a trial run. But Federer isn't looking for a clay court guru. If they get on well, they'll work together elsewhere, too. Like Roche before him, Higueras would be less than a full-time coach and more than a freelancer.
Higueras has worked with No. 1s and major champions, though lately he's been a semi-retired dabbler, spending time with Shahar Peer and Robby Ginepri, and Guillermo Coria and Dmitry Tursunov before that. Whereas Roche fit the description of an "old-school" coach—a classic player from a classic era working with a traditionalist—Higueras seems more interested in new ideas. I'm not saying this is always a better approach, just a different one and a better one, I think, for Federer, who has two very modern players—Rafael Nadal and Novak Djokovic—nipping at his heels. As a scout of current talent, Higueras is likely the more capable man.
A few years back at Wimbledon I had a conversation with Higueras about the statistical reports—pages long and precise down to the latest backhand volley error—that the tournament doles out to players and coaches upon request. Most coaches didn't bother with them or didn't know what I was talking about when I asked. Higueras knew about them and had opinions, too: how the data could be helpful, what it couldn't reveal, and how much it ought to be relied upon. He struck me as a man who would consider anything—from any source—in search of an answer to a problem.
What are Federer fans to make of this choice? Most of Federer's followers I've come across (in person or via the Web) either have a feeling of total confidence or impending doom about their favorite player (there's never a middle, it seems). If the guy loses a few matches, as he did to Guillermo Canas last year, he's done for. When he wins two of the next three majors, all is well. We've recently returned to a "doom" stage now that Federer hasn't won a tournament this year (considering he had mono, his results have been quite good). So, does Federer have a problem for Higueras to solve? Yes and no. Yes, he has Nadal and Djokovic behind him, two players with the shots, and the confidence, to be No. 1. No, his game is not the problem. If he can play like he did in Shanghai at the end of last year—and there's no reason to think he can't—then it's hard to imagine him being repeatedly steamrolled by Nadal or Djokovic.
Peter Bodo (otherwise known as the Federer of Tennis.com), has some great analysis on Federer-Higueras in his blog. He also suggests that at this point in his career, Federer needs a coach. I'm not sure about that, but again, "Why not?" If that remains the rationale, Higueras seems like a perfect fit: He's not interested in traveling a lot, he's best at preparing players for clay and hard court success, and he's got a talent for scouting opponents and calibrating his own player's skills to counteract an opponent's weaknesses. If there's an analogy to be made between a good coach and a good mechanic, then Higueras—who seems like a tinkerer of the highest order—is going to be one happy mechanic with Federer, the most intricate piece of tennis machinery in the world.
Courier, the former world No. 1 and the player who worked most closely with Higueras, had this to say about his former coach: "Jose understands the mind of a champion, knows how to deliver information tactfully and knows how to prepare a player as well as anyone you'll find. It's anyone's guess as to whether they will connect as player and coach but it seems like a logical choice by Roger."
Yes, it's possible that these two won't connect and will soon part ways. But I'm guessing they won't need as much of a connection as other players and coaches might to succeed. Higueras' strength, as Courier suggests, is his preparation and his ability to inspire a player to adapt to circumstances. Federer has adapted, on his own, to new challenges whenever necessary. Put an insightful teacher and a quick learner together and they shouldn't have to spend much time together—which is what both of them would prefer anyway. At this point in Federer's career, I don't see a better choice.
Tom Perrotta is a senior editor at TENNIS magazine.