What I just would like to know is how would you give me proof that a guy is a good coach. I've met Peter Smith and he was a real nice guy and practiced with another player before a clay court tournament. What I want to figure out is the numbers part. For example if say Peter Smith gets a group of 4 and 5 stars and is able to make top 10 players out of them...then he's good. If he gets 3 star players and makes them top 10 players ... then he's great...and finally if he gets 3 star players, makes them top ten and makes his team NCAA champs... yep, he's the Vince Lombardi, John Wooden, Connie Mack of tennis coaches. You see what I mean. Anybody can say...yeah, he's a good coach and a nice guy and I "feel" like he's good or "I like him"..etc...
I'd like to know who do you all think by OBJECTIVE DATA or STATS is the best coach currently or in the past. It's mainly for education for me as a curious guy. It's like saying Tony Nadal is a great coach...well yeah.. if his one student is Rafa.. or Richard Williams is the greatest coach...if your daughters happen to be Venus and Serena.
In that manner we can see, what techniques he uses for player development in all areas to make a good player. It's a combo I think of stroke technique (for injury prevention), shot development, fitness (for injury prevention) and mental preparation for strategy and mental toughness needed to play our sport on a championship or high level.
That's why I'd like the info. I "like" Chuck Kriese...but I can't prove he's the best.
I agree with a lot of what you say. There are many different aspects to being a good coach. If you look at winning vs. losing only you get into some aspects that can be outside of the coach's reach.
Most matches are won or lost based on who recruits best, meaning who has the most talented, hardest working, best playing athletes. Some of that has to do with the academic and athletic reputation (would you rather have a degree from Stanford or Oregon--both good schools but if you weren't just an athlete, Stanford has a much greater reputation). Some of it has to do with location of the school. A school in Idaho will struggle to get the same players a school in Florida can get, so even the same coach won't appear as successful because the ability to recruit kids to a school in Idaho is much more difficult. Obviously, for people not getting a full-ride, costs also play into the ability to recruit. Some people are turned off by sticker shock but may not realize that some schools offer a lot more financial aid and can give you an overall better value than one who can only subsidize an athlete with athletic money.
Once you have the players, then it comes down to a coaching staff (not just the head coach) who can help improve the players mentally, physically, technically and competitively. Coaches bring in different strengths and weaknesses, so having a staff that compliments you is important. As stated above, someone who can take a player and improve them significantly can be considered a great coach if you can do that for a significant number of players on your team.
As a coach, the most exciting days are the days where your team could win or lose and it comes down to mid-match corrections in strategy, in having the players access what they have been working on in practice, and implementing the correct game plan to win. It is always interesting to me to see certain coaches of supposedly good teams who essentially cheerlead, but make minimal input on mid-match strategy/positioning. Players go to those schools partially because they see a successful program, but in reality the program is good because either the coach is a good recruiter or the school is desirable. That's why I always recommend prospective athletes to go to do an overnight with the team and attend a practice, a match, and a class.
To me, the best coaches win more of the doubles points compared to the singles because it is in doubles where the strategies, positioning, teamwork, etc. win out. Because of this, I would like to see doubles emphasized more in D1. Make doubles best of 3 sets with a super-breaker for the 3rd set and play no-ad scoring. It won't significantly add too much time to the match, but it will increase the emphasis of doubles in the overall match and the role coaching plays in it.
