As Paris Approaches, Federer Veers Off Course

So far, no one other than Roger Federer, Tony Roche,
and those close to them know why the world no. 1 and a veteran coach
parted ways last week, days after Federer's surprise defeat at the Rome
Masters to Filippo Volandri, a mediocre Italian who played the match of his life in his home country.

It's fair, however, for Federer's fans to wonder: Has our man hit
the panic button? Federer turned to Roche at the end of 2004 not just
because the 61-year-old Aussie was the sort of "old school" player
Federer admires, but because he knew something about winning on clay as
an attacking player ( Roche, an expert serve-and-volleyer, won the
French Open in 1966 and was twice runner-up). To end the relationship
two weeks before Roland Garros is, to say the least, awkward and odd,
especially since there was hardly cause for alarm in the Federer camp
until the Volandri match.

Granted, Federer had not been his usual invincible self of late. Since winning the Australian

Open and a small title in Dubai, he lost to Guillermo Canas twice in
the span of days and to Nadal on clay at the Monte Carlo Masters. That
he reached the final of Monte Carlo was a good sign, however, as was
his early arrival — before any other player — in Rome. Roche came, too,
and Federer said his preparation had been perfect. In his first match,
he showed good form in defeating Nicolas Almagro, a talented Spaniard
who took Federer to three sets in Rome last year. Another meeting with
Nadal was in the offing, a final preview to the real show at Roland
Garros.

Then along came Volandri, an Italian with a rank of 53 and one of
the weakest serves on the professional tour. In his worst loss in his
time at no. 1, Federer managed 44 errors in two sets; 38% of the points
the two men played ended in a Federer error. He only made 44% of his
first serves and took advantage of one break point out of seven. His
forehand, erratic in his other three losses this season, was consistent
on this day: bad from start to finish. Nothing worked, and Volandri won
handily, 6–2, 6–4.

Roche can't be blamed for this. As much as one can debate, in the
abstract, the importance of a coach to a top tennis pro, there's never
been anything to argue about in the case of Federer and Roche. Federer
doesn't need him, as he showed in 2004, when he won three majors on his
own. Roche, to his credit, has never patted himself on the back for his
work. He helped Federer with his volleys and his backhand slice, and
advocated moving toward the net on clay, rather than trying to defeat
Nadal's defensive wizardry one tiring baseline rally after another.

Powered by ScribeFire.