PDA

View Full Version : Coaching overrated


barry
05-12-2007, 11:13 AM
1. Murray game was better before Gilbert. He seems to be slipping.

2. Roddick will not get any better no matter who is coaching, Connors canít perform miracles.

3. Federer would be much better off without Roach. Roach started the demise of Lendl a few years back, and now Federer is on a down hill path.

Murray and Federer have tremendous natural ability, why not just let it develop, they already have the court smarts to make things happen.

Breaker
05-12-2007, 11:52 AM
Murray has one of the best records on tour this year..Roddick jumped out of his downward spiral back to number three, and Fed had arguably the best year of his career last year, it's not the coaches' fault if the players lose a couple of matches.

kingdaddy41788
05-12-2007, 12:00 PM
I'd have to agree Breaker.

barry
05-12-2007, 12:25 PM
Murray and Federer were already doing very well without the coaches.

Federer sees the light! Suspect Murray will follow suit!

http://www.rogerfederer.com

Eviscerator
05-12-2007, 12:38 PM
1. Murray game was better before Gilbert. He seems to be slipping.

2. Roddick will not get any better no matter who is coaching, Connors canít perform miracles.

3. Federer would be much better off without Roach. Roach started the demise of Lendl a few years back, and now Federer is on a down hill path.

Murray and Federer have tremendous natural ability, why not just let it develop, they already have the court smarts to make things happen.

No personal offense intended, but your notion that coaching is overrated is absurd. If the top pros who know more about their games than you are willing to pay them great $$$, then they obviously think coaching is well worth it.

Although I could list plenty of examples where coaching has made a positive difference, I will use a recent and obvious example. Fernando Gonzalez hired coach Larry Stefanki and his results have improved tremendously. I remember watching his old coach Horis working with him a few years back and when Fernando was hitting the ball as hard as humanly possible, Horis was imploring him to hit it even harder. Needless to say there are times to crush the ball, but it wasn't until Larry started to work with him that he started to play some defense and construct points better. His results speak for themselves.

Breaker
05-12-2007, 01:40 PM
Murray and Federer were already doing very well without the coaches.

Federer sees the light! Suspect Murray will follow suit!

http://www.rogerfederer.com

Murray was actually doing poorly before Gilbert came on board, having a .500 record last year before Brad started coaching him. This year he is 24-6 with a title and a place in the top 10. Federer does well with or without a coach but last year he improved drastically on clay and overall consistency. I don't think Roche has much to do with his losses to Canas and Volandri.

TheNatural
05-12-2007, 02:09 PM
Roche coached Fed to his 2 best seasons ever, 2005 81-4 , and 2006 92-5, and to 6 slams out of 9 attempts, not too bad.

DashaandSafin
05-12-2007, 02:37 PM
Troll strikes again....great posts by the few above that show that coaching is indeed important.

Ethan04
05-12-2007, 03:26 PM
Top players really don't need any coaching. they know how to win and how to handle a loss. what they really need are travel managers that would take care all other arrangements like hotels, travels, etc..

tricky
05-12-2007, 03:38 PM
Coaches at that level mostly can offer tactics and maybe teach a certain style of play requiring special techniques. Like, for example, Sampras learning how to chip and charge from his last coach. And apparently, Connors has improved Roddick's volleying and backhand technique.

That inherently makes their relationships shorter -- after all, what else can they teach them if 95% of their game is set -- unless it's a coach that was with them in their formative years. They learn all the tactics they can from the coach; then they need to find another coach to learn something new.

barry
05-12-2007, 03:54 PM
In Federer's case, he was number 1 in the world long before Roche became his coach. I don't think Roche can offer him anything. He was much better traveling with Mirna and a trainer than he is now.

Gilbert got on the Murray band wagon just when Murray started winning tournaments. Like Aggassi and Roddick, Murray will dump him soon, he has nothing to offer him.

FiveO
05-12-2007, 04:06 PM
Ask some of GS champions how they feel about their coaches even if their relationships ended less than well:

Connors with Pancho Segura

McEnroe with Tony Palofax

Agassi with Brad Gilbert

Rafter with Roche

Ask each of them how much of their successes they attribute to these coaches. Of course, coaching can't replace talent. However it is more likely that talent could be squandered without guidance. Like other sports, any coach/athlete relationship has the potential to go stale. Athletes can get tired of hearing the same voice. Once they stop listening and more importantly believing, that relationship should end for the sake of both parties. The role is important whether its visible or not. The right voice reaching the right talent can make for some incredible successes.

Eviscerator
05-13-2007, 02:42 PM
In Federer's case, he was number 1 in the world long before Roche became his coach. I don't think Roche can offer him anything. He was much better traveling with Mirna and a trainer than he is now.

Gilbert got on the Murray band wagon just when Murray started winning tournaments. Like Aggassi and Roddick, Murray will dump him soon, he has nothing to offer him.

I noticed that you do not respond to other peoples posts and seem only to rant without interaction. Any particular reason for this or do you like to only see your own words in print :confused:

z-money
05-13-2007, 02:57 PM
you are saying murray would be better off without gilbert? huh...
well i think roddick and murray should switch. (andy was #1 with gilbert) but murray is a head case he blows up at thing that dont matter. he needs a coach and a theropist. he is a great player but why do you say he needs to change when he has just reached he greatest ranking. im puzzled by this Q of yours

then there is roger. he got roache to help him with his net game. clay is an opposite beast. he has also been playing with sampras lately. i dont know how you got to your conclusion i just think he needs more people. like roache is part time. so talk to muster, guga, vilas! anyone who was great on clay to help him with tactics

tennis_hand
05-13-2007, 06:11 PM
even if Roger didn't have a "formal" coach, he still had a lot of people advising him in 2004. That is coaching in some sense. So, to say coaching is not important is purely BS.

Brian_C
05-13-2007, 06:22 PM
i agree with tennis_hand, its always a good thing to have some one advising you

psamp14
05-13-2007, 09:25 PM
barry, i dont know how you can say coaching is overrated....

in federer's case its different because he won 3 slams in 2004 without a coach, and roche was only part-time...so federer's 81-4 record in 2005 and last year's 92-5 (not sure) record partly was to federer's natural ability, as well as roche's advice

murray's game and ranking only went up since partnering up with gilbert.....and roddick's mediocre 2006 turned around immediately when he got connors

coaches coach and its the players who make the shots, but a lot of times that little advice given pays off....coaching is not overrated

barry
05-14-2007, 07:51 AM
barry, i dont know how you can say coaching is overrated....

in federer's case its different because he won 3 slams in 2004 without a coach, and roche was only part-time...so federer's 81-4 record in 2005 and last year's 92-5 (not sure) record partly was to federer's natural ability, as well as roche's advice

murray's game and ranking only went up since partnering up with gilbert.....and roddick's mediocre 2006 turned around immediately when he got connors

coaches coach and its the players who make the shots, but a lot of times that little advice given pays off....coaching is not overrated

Agree Federer is an exception and does better without a full time coach. In Murray's case he was moving up quickly before Gilbert was given the million dollar contract, which by the way Murray is not paying. If Gilbert is such a great coach, why did Agassi and Roddick fire him? With the talent on tour these days, DAVYDENKO has the best idea, he hits with his brother who is his business partner. Like DAVYDENKO says it is strictly business.

I don't think Roddick has improved at all, Connor's cannot perform miracles. Roddick is a top 20 player, but does not belong in the top 10. He has one good shot, his serve, the rest of his game is average. His favorable draw helps him keep his ranking.

For as interacting with posters, if I read something constructive I usually respond but do not visit this board daily.

christos_liaskos
05-14-2007, 02:53 PM
At the top level I think coaching is mostly to do with tactics. As a player you cant always see the full picture of what happens in a match and having a coach or someone to help you analyze what happened and your performance and what can be improved can be very valuble.

What surprises me is how so many players have coaches yet so many seem to have basic tactical faults. I am not saying that commentators are the absolute genius know it alls of the tennis world but if you watch a match on tv with a knowledgeable commentator (in the UK on Sky I like Petchey and Fleming) they always pick out basic problems with players' tactics. It makes you wonder what these players' coaches are telling these players. Players with wasted talent like Mathieu are a great example of 'what is his coach telling him?'. And if his coach is telling him the right things yet the player is clearly ignoring the advice given then that player has to be one of the dumbest people on the planet, to pay a coach for advice and then completely ignore it.

illkhiboy
05-14-2007, 03:02 PM
I noticed that you do not respond to other peoples posts and seem only to rant without interaction. Any particular reason for this or do you like to only see your own words in print :confused:

That's exactly what he does.
barry: a longtime troll who pops up every now and then presumably when a reasonably old TW member gets really bored. Notice how sporadically he logs in.

psamp14
05-14-2007, 06:28 PM
Agree Federer is an exception and does better without a full time coach. In Murray's case he was moving up quickly before Gilbert was given the million dollar contract, which by the way Murray is not paying. If Gilbert is such a great coach, why did Agassi and Roddick fire him? With the talent on tour these days, DAVYDENKO has the best idea, he hits with his brother who is his business partner. Like DAVYDENKO says it is strictly business.

I don't think Roddick has improved at all, Connor's cannot perform miracles. Roddick is a top 20 player, but does not belong in the top 10. He has one good shot, his serve, the rest of his game is average. His favorable draw helps him keep his ranking.

For as interacting with posters, if I read something constructive I usually respond but do not visit this board daily.

you can keep your opinion on murray but his style of play has been said to be similar to gilbert's....i never really saw gilbert play, but the style of changing pace, hitting slow balls, scrappy tennis but tactical....that developed much more after gilbert came in

murray's got a lot of talent but gilbert's the one who's helped the skinny murray bulk up, grow taller, and thus this raises his game and ranking

roddick, if no connors, would be sitting just around the top 10, or top 15 in my opinion.......a big part of why he is back at #3 is because of the confidence connors has instilled in him.....the thought that a great like jimmy connors believes in you boosts your confidence

a lot of people bash roddick for a lot of things......but i think he's a solid top 5 player, big serve, not as big a forehand as he used to have, but he still has it, and his backhand is much improved......also i like his personality and what it brings to the sport....his court sense, love for davis cup, and who doesnt enjoy watching 140+mph aces?

i cannot comment on why agassi and roddick fired gilbert...maybe the same reason federer dumped roche...lack of communication, or the effort being put in just wasnt showing the results they wanted

roddick felt his game had hit a plateau, agassi for some other reasons, and federer because he thinks he's good enough, coach or no coach

i wont be surprised if federer wins the french open without a coach, and sweeps the rest of the slams while he's coacheless....sorry, coach-less ;)

Ryan
05-14-2007, 08:37 PM
Alot of the coaches who are employed by professional players are former touring pro's themselves. What that means is that they only know what they have been taught which can be very limited. This is why there are some players that connect better with the Brad Gilbert's than others. Take Brad for example, He employed tactics and fighting instinct which is often missed in players games. Thats why he is deemed so successful. Hes able to provide knowledge that others haven't because of the gamestyle he played. Tony Roche may have done everything he could have which was nothing different than Federer already knows. I think the best coaches are the ones that develop players and have had that vision for them since they were young like Lansdorp, Bollietieri etc. They dont necessarily need to play at an international level but they do need to know what it takes to win at an international level. This is something that many pro's dont understand and so they don't get the best bang for their buck. In my eyes knowledge over powers experience. The game has changed too much for experience to be really helpful.

predrag
05-15-2007, 06:51 AM
[snip]

murray's got a lot of talent but gilbert's the one who's helped the skinny murray bulk up, grow taller, and thus this raises his game and ranking

[snip]



Now this is the first one :)

How on Earth did Gilbert help Murray grow taller?

Stretched him?


Regards, Predrag

Pleepers
05-15-2007, 07:07 AM
To get back to the original theme of the thread, I really don't think coaching is overrated. Players cannot see everything that needs work or what they themselves are doing wrong. Have you ever videotaped yourself and found a number of things you found needed work?

Now some would then argue: well all a player needs is a video camera and to watch their own matches to see what goes wrong. But, here is where the coach can offer outside perspective and tactical advice a less experienced player might need.

An other thing a coach offers is the psychological and emotional support (i.e. friendship) that many players may need as they go on tour to "fight the world" by themselves.

Now, not all players need all the aspects I have mentioned. Some are obviously more mature and self-directed than other players, ala Federer. But this does not eliminate the need for a coach for the vast majority of players.

Eviscerator
05-15-2007, 08:31 AM
Alot of the coaches who are employed by professional players are former touring pro's themselves. What that means is that they only know what they have been taught which can be very limited. This is why there are some players that connect better with the Brad Gilbert's than others. Take Brad for example, He employed tactics and fighting instinct which is often missed in players games. Thats why he is deemed so successful. Hes able to provide knowledge that others haven't because of the gamestyle he played. Tony Roche may have done everything he could have which was nothing different than Federer already knows. I think the best coaches are the ones that develop players and have had that vision for them since they were young like Lansdorp, Bollietieri etc. They dont necessarily need to play at an international level but they do need to know what it takes to win at an international level. This is something that many pro's dont understand and so they don't get the best bang for their buck. In my eyes knowledge over powers experience. The game has changed too much for experience to be really helpful.

Hello and welcome to the forum.

Even though we differ on the value of coaching, it is a good post for a noob. ;)

psamp14
05-15-2007, 06:21 PM
Now this is the first one :)

How on Earth did Gilbert help Murray grow taller?

Stretched him?


Regards, Predrag

oh i dont know....making him do drills, certain exercises in the gym...he is only like 19 so at 18-19 you can still grow

TheNatural
05-15-2007, 07:40 PM
I'd like to know how he helped murray grow taller too, lol




murray's got a lot of talent but gilbert's the one who's helped the skinny murray bulk up, grow taller, and thus this raises his game and ranking

TheNatural
05-15-2007, 07:56 PM
But thos guys like Bolletieri train 10000's and only a few make it. I think the test to see how Fed does coachless is to see if he can win 6 of his next 9 majors coachless like he did with a coach. After all Roche did say that his peak years were gong to be 26, 27, 28. So if he improves at the same rate as he has with a coach he should be as successful coachless.

Alot of the coaches who are employed by professional players are former touring pro's themselves. What that means is that they only know what they have been taught which can be very limited. This is why there are some players that connect better with the Brad Gilbert's than others. Take Brad for example, He employed tactics and fighting instinct which is often missed in players games. Thats why he is deemed so successful. Hes able to provide knowledge that others haven't because of the gamestyle he played. Tony Roche may have done everything he could have which was nothing different than Federer already knows. I think the best coaches are the ones that develop players and have had that vision for them since they were young like Lansdorp, Bollietieri etc. They dont necessarily need to play at an international level but they do need to know what it takes to win at an international level. This is something that many pro's dont understand and so they don't get the best bang for their buck. In my eyes knowledge over powers experience. The game has changed too much for experience to be really helpful.

psamp14
05-15-2007, 10:03 PM
I'd like to know how he helped murray grow taller too, lol

i cannot find the article at this moment and i dont care so much to do so but murray had a growth spurt recently and put on like 15 pounds of muscle...he used to be a skinny 6 feet and like 150 pounds but now he's 6'3'' and 175 according to the official atp site...so more than 15 pounds

gilbert has a lot to do with that because he advised murray on what workouts/exercises/eating habits/etc to do and when you're 18/19 there's still some room for vertical growth

in any case murray did the work, but gilbert is his mentor and is a part of the reason of murray's success

predrag
05-16-2007, 06:08 AM
i cannot find the article at this moment and i dont care so much to do so but murray had a growth spurt recently and put on like 15 pounds of muscle...he used to be a skinny 6 feet and like 150 pounds but now he's 6'3'' and 175 according to the official atp site...so more than 15 pounds

gilbert has a lot to do with that because he advised murray on what workouts/exercises/eating habits/etc to do and when you're 18/19 there's still some room for vertical growth

in any case murray did the work, but gilbert is his mentor and is a part of the reason of murray's success


Oh my god!

You are serious!!!

I like Gilbert as a coach, but come on, he is not God.

Regards, Predrag

christos_liaskos
05-16-2007, 06:24 AM
Weird how conversations develop. This started with the subject of how effective coaching is but now we seem to be talking about Gilbert, the man who can make you grow. hahahahahahaha

TheNatural
05-16-2007, 06:56 AM
Here's what Agassi's father thinks about Brad Gilbert and Nick Bollettieri's coaching (pretty funny):

"I have told Andre and Brad Gilbert a hundred times: play one against two to improve your volley, but no, Brad Gilbert goes there and hits against Andre. I said: "Brad, if you were good enough to play against Andre, you would go on the tour and make more money." He always had answers. He hit one ball, he talks 10 minutes. He hit one ball, he talks 10 minutes. Then in two hours, Andre has only hit 30 balls."
--------------------------------

Tennis Week: Nick Bollettieri was quoted on that biography saying you could be a very, very tough and demanding tennis parent. What do you think about that?

Mike Agassi: Nick Bollettieri was trying to be the sole coach, advisor, kingÖbut he was on the phone with me five times a week saying: "What do I do? What do I do? You stay away. Iím doing it." After a year and half I go there and find a kid who is not going forward and finishing at the net game, heís playing 15 feet behind the baseline. I said "Whatís that?" And he said, "Well, what do you want, heís winning."


Alot of the coaches who are employed by professional players are former touring pro's themselves. What that means is that they only know what they have been taught which can be very limited. This is why there are some players that connect better with the Brad Gilbert's than others. Take Brad for example, He employed tactics and fighting instinct which is often missed in players games. Thats why he is deemed so successful. Hes able to provide knowledge that others haven't because of the gamestyle he played. Tony Roche may have done everything he could have which was nothing different than Federer already knows. I think the best coaches are the ones that develop players and have had that vision for them since they were young like Lansdorp, Bollietieri etc. They dont necessarily need to play at an international level but they do need to know what it takes to win at an international level. This is something that many pro's dont understand and so they don't get the best bang for their buck. In my eyes knowledge over powers experience. The game has changed too much for experience to be really helpful.

psamp14
05-16-2007, 07:05 PM
Oh my god!

You are serious!!!

I like Gilbert as a coach, but come on, he is not God.

Regards, Predrag

i didnt say gilbert was god.....any coach with the same advice would lead murray to where he is right now....most talented players just need the little advice and direction to get them going

get off the subject mate...

barry
05-20-2007, 06:25 PM
Federer first tournament without a coach and he wins! Coaching is overrated.

Maybe Roddick and Murray will be next and fire their coaches. Probably work for them also.