Originally Posted by timnz
I sometimes have wondered whether players who are naturals, make for poorer coaches. Things come so easily for them, they would 't know how to articulate something to pass onto others. Whereas players who had to struggle, had to learn bit by bit can convey the components much more readily because they have had to reflect on them a lot more.
Top coaches - roche, cahill, gilbert, annacone - guys who were very good players but not quite at the top.
Just a theory.
Yes, that's why great players rarely make great coaches, and why people should think twice before citing their "expert" opinions on all things tennis/insert-other-sport-here to confirm their own bias.
In basketball we have the likes of Jackson, Riley, Auerbach and Popovich, none of whom would make the HoF on their resume as a player alone, in fact quite the opposite in the latter two's cases.
Originally Posted by Carsomyr
You should add Stefanki to that list - a very good coach.
Stefanki is the Phil Jackson of tennis, the kind of coach who helps players who are close to breaking through realize their full potential. But I'm not as impressed with his success over the long term. That's where Phil has him beat (and perhaps all the others).