Wow Andy is very intelligent in conversations, as always. Wish all tennis fans could listen to the last third of this interview, talking about Novak, Fed and all the top players. Very insightful stuff to hear from the guys who actually play the game……

March 23rd, 2011 at 5:57 pm

“Whoever wants to critise Roger for his tennis right now had better be very good at his job – very good” – Roddick.

But there is a difference between criticism and inquiry. Meanwhile here is a short piece not unsympathetically outling aspects of Federer’s “decline” – always a relative concept, remember, and maybe in absolute terms signalling little, but enough to make all the difference right at the very top. Patrick Mouratoglou, b.t.w., is pretty good at his job (tennis coach) so far as I know:”http://uk.eurosport.yahoo.com/tennis/patrick-mouratoglou/article/1454/

March 24th, 2011 at 7:20 am

Ridiculous! Hurtful, disrespectful, distasteful, unfounded and way out of line. Yet you want to draw our attention to another article of “inquiry”? I wonder how you would feel if bombarded with “inquiries” about your imminent demotion? And of course backed up by negative statements fromn your colleagues about your ability to do your job at last year’s level.
Last year at this time the feeding frenzy had the current holder of 3 Grand Slams all washed up!
If people cannot refrain from such speculative nonsense out of innate decency, perhaps they can reflect on how ridiculous they should feel about last year’s predictions on Rafa Nadal?

March 24th, 2011 at 9:27 am

At least he’s not disrespectful to the top players though his disrespect to officials and lower ranked players shows.

March 24th, 2011 at 10:05 am

Obviously Fed is still at or near the top of the game, but some of the points raised in that article (the one grendel posted) do seem true nonetheless: the half step slower point, and maybe the serve, though I think Fed can and probably will get that firing again, likely in time for Wimbeldon. He is still a big threat to pretty much all players, which is likely the point Roddick was making. Facing all those decline questions must be annoying as hell, but it is not going to stop. Journalists will be journalists.

March 24th, 2011 at 10:17 am

The way that A-Rod tells it like it is to the journos is the reason I forgive his outbursts on court and can’t find it in me to dislike him for them.

March 24th, 2011 at 10:42 am

Tom Gainy you must be deaf on both ears if you claim tha Roddick said that Fed’s game was ridiculous. Where the hell is he criticising Roger’s game? he said that whoever criticizes Roger’s game must be ridiculous. I think you are ridiculous!

March 24th, 2011 at 1:33 pm

I have always enjoyed and respected Federer as a a great player and still do. But I have never been an intense fan. It seemed to me that at IW he was somewhat withdrawn and low-energy, even in the matches that he won. Perhaps he doesn’t have the intensity right now about his tennis, in the way that Djokovic does at the moment. I do believe it will come back. Like the Williams sisters, he seems to be all about the slams, although he does show up at the tournaments. Why not? He has achieved so much. What can be his goals except more majors and being a good father? I see no reason to count him out. There is no decline; just a low ebb for the time being.

March 24th, 2011 at 1:40 pm

Andy Murray is a teetotaler. Rafa does drink occasionally. Nole loves his alcohol!

March 24th, 2011 at 2:03 pm

My kinda guys! :)Party at skeezers house!

March 24th, 2011 at 2:05 pm

leslie,Patrick Mouratoglou is always writing analytical pieces on current players, and naturally he has to tell the truth as he sees it. It is open to anyone to disagree with him. I doubt, b.t.w., that Federer sees too much, if any, of this sort of stuff.

March 24th, 2011 at 3:57 pm

I’m amazed the same person didn’t ask Roddick about his own decline and if he saw himself possibly winning another slam. Stupid people asking stupid questions . Roddick’s answer certainly took the life out of the presser and it abruptly ended.

March 24th, 2011 at 10:29 pm

Andy Roddick: “It’s ridiculous. Ridiculous. Whoever wants to criticise Roger for his tennis right now had better be very good at his job — very good”

The truth is that Patrick Mouratoglou is not very good at his job. He is really a mediocre tennis coach, and was even worse as a player. Search the ATP website — he is not even listed as a former player, meaning he has no experience playing tennis at the ATP level. As a tennis coach, his academy at one time or another coached only second rate players and brief flashes: Marcos Baghdatis (but it was really Guillaume Peyre who coached Baghdatis to the 2006 AO final, not Mouratoglou or his coaches), Anastasia Pavlyuchenkova, Aravane Rezai, Yanina Wickmayer and Jeremy Chardy. That’s it. That means that Mouratoglou is mediocre, even incompetent — he has zero experience coaching at the top levels of the ATP tour, let alone claim to have any credibility to assess and critique Federer’s game. Federer’s critics have to grasp at such straws.

When Baghdatis severed his ties with the Mouratoglou Academy a few years ago, he revealed in an interview that he felt betrayed and “don’t feel connected to Mouratoglou anymore… This academy was part of my life. For me it was a family, not business. When I realised that they didn’t have the same feelings for me, I was blown away. It hurt me.” what a joke. Mouratoglou cannot even handle his top player Baghdatis, yet thinks he is competent to critique Federer.

Listen to Andy Roddick, not Mouratoglou. Everyone has an opinion to get free publicity, but few are credible.

March 24th, 2011 at 10:45 pm

Word, patty, why didn’t they ask roddick about roddick?!
Maybe its good he could dodge the question, but that was kind of a dumb move from the reporter. Or else he was chicken.
Didn’t pick roddick to win here, but actually, it might ne the next best pleasing outcome after a roger win.

March 24th, 2011 at 10:47 pm

Loudly criticizing chair umpires for making mandatory net calls is also ridiculous

March 25th, 2011 at 6:44 am

what’s even more monumentally ridiculous is that the umpires and rule makers have not used common sense to change the stupid rule (despite the numerous misfires of the let machine), thus prompting players like Roddick to drive change.

March 25th, 2011 at 3:34 pm

Roddick had his own (perfectly worthy) agenda as an unoffical member of the players’ union. I am sure he is capable of being objective, in private, but he won’t be objective about a fellow great in front of the lights, and why should he be.

I don’t know whether Mouratoglou is a “mediocre” coach or not, and never imagined he was a ranked player. I do know that is irrelevant, especially to people like us posting for fun. Talking of “Federer’s critics” is a giveaway. I like Federer at least as much as any of his adulatory fans. But in this, as in every other area of life, I seek – in my tiny little way – truth. No one ever gets there, but I think it is worth trying. I have noticed that this is an unwelcome aspiration in almost every avenue of life. Certain people have always prefered fantasy to reality.

March 25th, 2011 at 7:08 pm

Truth check time!

When somebody claims to know about Roddick’s “agenda”, is this really true? Can this person really read what’s in Roddick’s mind? Does this person really know Roddick?

When somebody claims to know when Roddick is and is not objective about another player, is this really true? Can this person really read Roddick’s mind? Does this person know Roddick?

Roddick is an official (and respected) member of the “tennis player’s union”. That’s because all ATP players are members of the ATP. The ATP is like a player’s union.

Wow, when somebody claims it is irrelevant that Mouratoglou is a “mediocre” coach not qualified to comment on Federer’s game, then you have to wonder.

If we claim to seek truth, then at least try to seek truth. Those who claim to seek truth by relying on unqualified sources — and stating that the qualification of the unqualified source is irrelevant – are really the ones who prefer fantasy to reality, lol.

Isn’t it amusing that Federer’s critics have lately begun to preface their criticism with how much they love Federer. In any case, that’s irrelevant to whether or not their criticism has merit or credibility.

It is also irrelevant whether or not Federer’s critics are here for fun. Those who criticize Federer’s critics are also here for fun. Is it not amusing that Federer’s critics can dish out criticism at Federer but cannot take criticism of their criticism :)

March 26th, 2011 at 12:35 am

grendel: “truth”‘s a biggie isn’t it? as they say “history is written by the winners.”
Final 2 of “The Killing” tonight, excited and sad both at the same time…..a bit like watching Fed…

March 26th, 2011 at 3:10 am

I used the term “players’ union” metaphorically. I simply meant Roddick was likely, for a number of reasons,to,as it were, stand shoulder to shoulder with Federer in public. There is nothing remotely unusual in this stance, in fact anything else would have been surprising and Dave’s heavy sarcasm overdoes it a touch. Of course I don’t know what’s in Roddick’s head, but some behaviours are reasonably (though not perfectly) predictable. Naturally, I may be mistaken, but if one’s going to qualify absolutely everything….

About Mouratoglou. And why irrelevant, etc. First, you can be quite sure that Dave would have had nothing to say about this alleged mediocrity if Mouratoglou had said the sort of things about Federer which Dave likes to hear. Second, according to whom is he mediocre? Define “mediocre”. And even if he is mediocre by the standards of the very best (whoever they may be – expert opinion seems fairly divided on this one)does that really mean his opinion is worthless? No better than mine or Dave’s? Furthermore, a “mediocre” coach may be a perfectly good analyst, possibly better than some inspirational ones. But – all off the point, imo.

And in any case, Mouratoglou writes articles which are of proven interest to some tennisX posters, therefore it is reasonable to give links for them. They can form discussion points, they are not to be taken too seriously any more than any articles are.

“.. relying on unqualified sources ..” Rely? Hardly. A reasonably interesting source. But supposing one adduces someone like Peter Fleming, who clearly thinks Federer is in decline (and he very much likes Federer b.t.w.) I suppose Dave will then say Fleming was a mediocre player, despite having been in the top 10. Frew Macmillan, a commentator of unmatched perspicacity imo, is of the same opinion, and I would imagine this story can be repeated again and again. By some players, too – Marat Safin, for example, and I would guess a lot more, though on the whole they are likely to keep such opinions to themselves.

But this doesn’t prove anything. It, at best, suggests. To my mind, Federer is quite obviously in a slight decline from his own highly elevated standards. This makes getting another slam unlikely in my opinion, but not of course impossible.

“Isn’t it amusing that Federer’s critics have lately begun to preface their criticism with how much they love Federer?” What a silly slur. I have always been a Federer fan, and will continue to be. There are different ways of being a fan, no doubt, and one has to be careful not to denigrate those whose ways are different to one’s own – always a temptation for anyone, I think, including me.

“Is it not amusing that Federer’s critics can dish out criticism at Federer but cannot take criticism of their criticism :)”. The assumption here is that I am a critic of Federer. I reject this completely – I simply try to report what I see, not what I want to see. It may well be, of course, that I have defective eyesight – that’s another matter.

As for not being able to take criticism – I don’t understand. I thought we were here to discuss. How aweful if we all agreed.

margot – truth is indeed a biggie. You can only ever aspire, it goes without saying. You will fall short every time. But you may, on occasion, inch a tiny bit closer.

March 26th, 2011 at 5:24 am

Oddly, truth is a very messy subject. Perspective is one reason. Memory and its fallibility another. But relativism is messy, maybe even dangerous in some cases, too. In the midst of teaching a biography/autobiography course and “truth” is a central discussion issue, so the comments here grabbed my attention. We can’t change or argue facts, e.g., Fed’s records. But we can have opinions on how we think he is doing on the court these days, e.g., a step slower, or serve not firing on all cilinders, forehand still lethal weapon.. These things are more difficult to “prove” than stats,etc. One thing is certain. Time waits for no one. Eventually even the best and greatest fade – whether Fed is / is not fading? I guess we can make a stronger assessment later into the season, after the remaining slams. Many think he is; many think he isn’t. They all have their reasons…

March 26th, 2011 at 8:32 am

jane I think you have gotten closer to the heart of this mess(eerrrr..discussion), and your post could have been placed in other threads also and held up well….nice post :)

March 26th, 2011 at 10:08 am

jane: not sure u can even “edge closer” to truth, as grendel suggests. Your “truth” isn’t necessarily mine either. The closer u get to grabbing “truth,” like smoke it disappears.
As for “facts” yes, some r indisputable but many are just smoke and mirrors distorted, abused and mashed to support dubious arguments.
Of course I’m looking on the darker side here at politicians, judges and generals rather than the usually innocent recorders of tennis wins and losses.

March 26th, 2011 at 10:10 am

margot, agree that stats and facts can be manipulated to support truths/opinions/lies, sometimes danerously so. Much of the time what were talking about is opinion not truth per se. And yeah, some of us believe one thing to be true, while others of us think it’s bunk. Yet some historical truths must be acknowledged as such, and not denied. That is when truth starts to matter. But even in those experiences, there are many individuals who have their own “takes” on events. Just so long as the events themselves don’t disappear in smoke and mirrors.

Fed’s accomplishments aren’t going anywhere. They will stand the test of time. But Fed will go. Eventually. He won’t play forever. I am thinking 3 maybe 4 more years. Although it is possible he will play longer, maybe keep on in doubles or soemthing, like Martina and JMac did.

Thanks skeeze… Just blathering on. ;)

March 26th, 2011 at 11:27 am

Sometimes it does’nt matter if you are right or wrong: but I would be very happy if all the comments here were such as Grendel’s, intelligent, moderate and respectful toward other posters.

Just for the record: I really don’t think that Mouratoglou is a bad coach.

March 26th, 2011 at 12:20 pm

God bless A-rod. He has his faults like any human-being, but what cannot be disputed is that this guy has a heart bigger than the US of A. Let us not forget how much heart-ache Fed has caused A-rod over the years. Inspite of all that, to come out in support of Roger, is just classy. Thank you Andy. A lot of people, who are lesser human beings than you might win more matches, but when all is said and done, you actually win what matters more – people’s hearts. Keep up your work at being a good human being Andy.

Dave – good on you for putting up your argument that fed is not in decline with numbers to support, unlike some people who will dole out millions of words without making any sense at all.
Anyone who has sense knows roddick’s opinion counts more than some stupid nobody coach or some old senile guy like peter fleming. If fed has indeed declined it is all the more reason to celebrate his unwavering journey and fight against Time.

March 26th, 2011 at 1:59 pm

[...] Nadal dusting an old-looking Roger Federer 6-3, 6-2 in a match that wasn’t even that close. Andy Roddick said a week ago that it was “ridiculous” to criticize Federer’s game, but that was before last [...]

April 2nd, 2011 at 10:33 pm

There´s nothing to critizise, Roger´s getting older and he has to play patient tennis WHILE playing insane attacking tennis to beat Djoker and Rafa at their best, while they can beat Roger just by being consistent cause they´re better at that than Roger. And while Fed can use the dropshot so well it won´t win him the big matches, if he wants to win a slam he has to do it now, cause footwork and physiques has to do with both touch at net aswell as the serve! He do what he can, their games are just water sprayed upon Roger explosive game when Roger is not playing his best! I would play desperate points aswell if i was him, his chance would be if they sped the courts up again, therefore he still has a chance on USO season maybe, Wimby aswell.

April 9th, 2011 at 5:38 am