Brad Gilbert

[defensive4]

Do you think he is a good coach or not?

 

[Wondertoy]

May be the most overated coach in history.

 

[erdega79]

He called Nole "lightweight" last year, I bet he was cringing that last week . That's all I remember about him

 

[pound cat]

Brad thinks he's the best coach ever, so that makes 1 person who says he is.

 

[jamumafa]

He seems to have good results - but then again he hasn't taken anyone who wasnt going to be / aready is a good player to the top.

If he got Volandri or Henri-Mathieu to the top - THEN he'd the GOAT coach

 

[pound cat]

He seems to have good results - but then again he hasn't taken anyone who wasnt going to be / aready is a good player to the top.

If he got Volandri or Henri-Mathieu to the top - THEN he'd the GOAT coach

He really wanted to coach Safin a few years ago. That would have been a crushing blow to him.

 

[TennisKevin]

he had one of the best mental games in the history of tennis. that's all he can coach. he had ugly strokes, so he can't help anyone he coaches with their stroke mechanics like other coaches. i think he's a great coach because of what he did with Murray. but murray has been breaking down as of late, so maybe he isn't as mentally tough as gilbert ought to be making him. that's probably murrays own fault, though.

 

[circusmouse]

he had one of the best mental games in the history of tennis. that's all he can coach. he had ugly strokes, so he can't help anyone he coaches with their stroke mechanics like other coaches. i think he's a great coach because of what he did with Murray. but murray has been breaking down as of late, so maybe he isn't as mentally tough as gilbert ought to be making him. that's probably murrays own fault, though.

I wouldn't exactly say that Murray's been breaking down lately. He had two bad matches against an on-fire Djokovic. Otherwise, he has a record of 23-5 this year. Not bad for a 19 year old. Rumor has it that Murray was injured slightly during his second Djokovic match as well and chose to keep quiet about it to avoid making excuses. This rumor is supported by the fact that Murray may pull out of Davis Cup.

As for Gilbert, after having read his book, I do feel that he has an unusual ability to read a person's game and find ways of making them play poorly, which seems to make him a perfect fit for Murray. He would be a bad rec-level coach because his focus isn't on improving form, but he's an excellent pro coach because he comes up with intricate plans for beating tough opponents. He works with guys who already have the tools to win and just need help figuring out how to beat other top pros.

 

[Moves]

I know I learned a ton from reading his book. I was able to take my mediocre game and still win matches.

- Moves

 

[drakulie]

Yes, he is a good coach.

He resurrected AA's career. Took Roddick to # 1, and his only slam, and seems to be doing OK with Murray.

If he wasn't a good coach, he wouldn't be hired by the very best players in his profession.

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

Gilbert is very dangerous coach. He can finish the career of everybody as he did with Roddick. Roddick is nothing now in tennis. Soon Murrey will be nothing. Gilbert is from people around tennis but doing money inside tennis.

 

[drakulie]

^^^ What the hell are you talking about laser brain. Gilbert didn't finish Roddick's career. Roddick did just fine ruining it himself.

 

[Eviscerator]

He seems to have good results - but then again he hasn't taken anyone who wasnt going to be / aready is a good player to the top.

It would appear that he is capable of improving great players with a more analytical way of constructing points/matches. So in that respect he deserves some credit.

 

[edmondsm]

Gilbert is very dangerous coach. He can finish the career of everybody as he did with Roddick. Roddick is nothing now in tennis. Soon Murrey will be nothing. Gilbert is from people around tennis but doing money inside tennis.

That last sentence is completely indiscernable. The rest is completely ridiculous. Roddick was on fire until he fired Gilbert. He slumped after that but to say that Roddick is "nothing" in tennis is like saying McDonald's is nothing in the fast food world.

 

[dozu]

he will probably make Gilbert 2.0 out of Murray, who has no big weapons but can strategize a match quite well to have a decent career, but I doubt he will have any slam success as too many guys can hit thru the defensive oriented players.

 

[Ripper]

Murray is making Gilbert look bad by shouting at him in the matches... and Gilbert can't tell him to go to hell, because he's making a lot of money out of the deal

 

[Aykhan Mammadov]

That last sentence is completely indiscernable. The rest is completely ridiculous. Roddick was on fire until he fired Gilbert. He slumped after that but to say that Roddick is "nothing" in tennis is like saying McDonald's is nothing in the fast food world.

What I told is very clear to experienced posters here because the subject was discussed here before.

Of course Roddick is among 10, he is not nothing. But when u analyze u will see lack of techniques everywhere except service. Not a good feeling of the ball, not a sense of the game, incorrect places in the court he chose, absolutely vanishing left strokes, many COINS. With one serve Ivanicevich also won Wimbledon but nobody never joins him to the list of talents.

Gilbert theory of mainly statistical approach to tennis is not correct. tennis is something intuitive and despite there are statistcis about yr opponents but here very many players win intuitively, by feeling of the game. Murrey is from category of "intelligent" players, what means of those who creates extraordinary game on the court, who thinks and win by game, not thanking his physical condition and pushing boxers' strokes.

In this meaning it is very fragile subject, and it is dangerous to give such a thinking player into the hands of statistical Monster. The last sentence means that Gilbert as not so good former tennis player is trying make advertising and earn money from outside of tennis ( meant not playing himself).

 

[TennisKevin]

The last sentence means that Gilbert as not so good former tennis player is trying make advertising and earn money from outside of tennis ( meant not playing himself).

formerly Gilbert wasn't a good tennis player? say that to the 5 mil that he made on the tour. and the fact that he beat mcenroe AND connors, two of the greatest men ever seen on the tour. HE MADE MCENROE RETIRE! you've got to get your facts straight

 

[edmondsm]

What I told is very clear to experienced posters here because the subject was discussed here before.

Of course Roddick is among 10, he is not nothing. But when u analyze u will see lack of techniques everywhere except service. Not a good feeling of the ball, not a sense of the game, incorrect places in the court he chose, absolutely vanishing left strokes, many COINS. With one serve Ivanicevich also won Wimbledon but nobody never joins him to the list of talents.

Gilbert theory of mainly statistical approach to tennis is not correct. tennis is something intuitive and despite there are statistcis about yr opponents but here very many players win intuitively, by feeling of the game. Murrey is from category of "intelligent" players, what means of those who creates extraordinary game on the court, who thinks and win by game, not thanking his physical condition and pushing boxers' strokes.

In this meaning it is very fragile subject, and it is dangerous to give such a thinking player into the hands of statistical Monster. The last sentence means that Gilbert as not so good former tennis player is trying make advertising and earn money from outside of tennis ( meant not playing himself).

Nadal's strokes are flawed too. So are the Williams sisters'. It doesn't mean they aren't badass. I don't think you can call Brad Gilbert's approach "statistical". It's pragmatic and it puts his players in a good head space so that they can reach their full potential. Sure worked when he was coaching Agassi. He was a dangerous coach then....dangerous to Agassi's opponents.

Right after Murray started working with Gilbert he beat Fed. He also is second in match wins this year. How can you argue with results? And saying that he's only in it for the money is cheap and totally unsubstanciated. He's a competitor, and a damn good one.

 

[circusmouse]

What I told is very clear to experienced posters here because the subject was discussed here before.

Of course Roddick is among 10, he is not nothing. But when u analyze u will see lack of techniques everywhere except service. Not a good feeling of the ball, not a sense of the game, incorrect places in the court he chose, absolutely vanishing left strokes, many COINS. With one serve Ivanicevich also won Wimbledon but nobody never joins him to the list of talents.

Gilbert theory of mainly statistical approach to tennis is not correct. tennis is something intuitive and despite there are statistcis about yr opponents but here very many players win intuitively, by feeling of the game. Murrey is from category of "intelligent" players, what means of those who creates extraordinary game on the court, who thinks and win by game, not thanking his physical condition and pushing boxers' strokes.

In this meaning it is very fragile subject, and it is dangerous to give such a thinking player into the hands of statistical Monster. The last sentence means that Gilbert as not so good former tennis player is trying make advertising and earn money from outside of tennis ( meant not playing himself).

I don't think you have a very good understanding of Gilbert's methods. If you want to understand him, try reading his book. He doesn't use statistics at all. He's very much what you have called a "thinking player". I would call him an incredible observer.

Take, for instance, the method he describes in his book for beating Becker. He noticed that Becker likes to unload on forehands, which can lead to errors on difficult forehands, so Gilbert didn't give him any easy forehands which led Boris to many errors and mental frustration. He only hit hard to Becker's forehand. He noticed that Becker punishes second serves, so he went for a high percentage of first serves. He noticed that Becker easily gets frustrated on hot days, so he extended rallies on a hot day knowing that it would wear Becker down mentally. When playing Connors, he noticed that Connors dislikes hitting slow balls, so Gilbert went for aces on his first serves knowing that Connors couldn't do much with his second serves.

And while Gilbert is driven by money (as is made clear in his book), he also likes to talk tennis. Coaching a young, rising player is perfect for him.

 

[edmondsm]

And while Gilbert is driven by money (as is made clear in his book)

Didn't know that. Sorry Aykhan. I really need to get that book.