Radek Stepanek Officially Joins Team Djokovic

[Busted]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Djokovic also reached out to hire me to learn what books other players are reading and what are their favorite foods. I declined the substantial offer to focus on other obligations.

Scoop -

Did anybody ever tell you to take the money when the money is free?

 

[Moxie]

He needs Stepanek because Agassi will be with him only in some tournaments. Besides, I think Agassi will be largely about strategic things, not with day to day training.

As for O'Shaughnessy, I am puzzled as well. However, that is not announced officially so could be just someone's speculation.

Good to see you around, @Mastoor. What ever happened to the notion of Mario Ancic, who is actually still listed with Djokovic on some sites?

 

[Mastoor]

Good to see you around, @Mastoor. What ever happened to the notion of Mario Ancic, who is actually still listed with Djokovic on some sites?

I was under impression SuperMario was a coach for US Open only because he is too busy with his regular job on Wall Street. I think he may be in the box for each US Open Nole enters.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

As for O'Shaughnessy, I am puzzled as well. However, that is not announced officially so could be just someone's speculation.

Hiring of Craig is official. Also, Craig is really smart about the game (while not really a pro himself). He is not just a statistician. I have read his columns in "brain game" and most of the time, I found his observations to be quite on the money. He would certainly be an useful addition to any of the top players' team.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

I know why he needs a 2nd coach...i just don't think that Stepanek is the right guy for Djokovic. He needs somebody with an edge and who knows what it takes to not only beat the best but BE the best. What was Stepanek's highest ranking - 8 for 1 or 2 weeks? Just not buying that he's a guy who'll make a difference when someone has much natural talent - and already knows how to win - as Djokovic.

This is a classic confusion about the role of a coach. The coach does not have to be a big time player themselves. However, they should not be a mere arm-chair quarterback and should have played the game themselves at some level or another. The notion of supercoaches (former players with 6+ slams) is just a recent trend and is not necessarily a good idea always. I think Stepanek will be a good coach.

If you are dissing Stepanek, then go ahead and diss Moya as well. This does not make sense.

 

[Federberg]

This is a classic confusion about the role of a coach. The coach does not have to be a big time player themselves. However, they should not be a mere arm-chair quarterback and should have played the game themselves at some level or another. The notion of supercoaches (former players with 6+ slams) is just a recent trend and is not necessarily a good idea always. I think Stepanek will be a good coach.

If you are dissing Stepanek, then go ahead and diss Moya as well. This does not make sense.

While I agree with your basic point, it’s a bit of a stretch to equate Moyà and Stepanek. One is a former slam winner and #1!

 

[GameSetAndMath]

While I agree with your basic point, it’s a bit of a stretch to equate Moyà and Stepanek. One is a former slam winner and #1!

I am not claiming they both are of the same status. But, if one is thinking in terms of supercoaches, neither are and in that sense they are equivalent.

 

[mrzz]

Hiring of Craig is official. Also, Craig is really smart about the game (while not really a pro himself). He is not just a statistician. I have read his columns in "brain game" and most of the time, I found his observations to be quite on the money. He would certainly be an useful addition to any of the top players' team.

Agreed. In fact, even if he was "just an statistician", as he is a good one, it is a good addition. I guess people are underestimating some aspects of the game. Those guys play countless balls. There are a lot of useful statistics out there. In some cases it will mean less time on court against lesser players, which is already reason enough to hire one guy like that. Some times it could mean the difference between winning and losing against a good player -- just one of those in a year is a good enough reason.

Actually that's a job I would like to try myself, I am sure I would do it quite well (some other guys here on board too).

This is a classic confusion about the role of a coach. The coach does not have to be a big time player themselves. However, they should not be a mere arm-chair quarterback and should have played the game themselves at some level or another. The notion of supercoaches (former players with 6+ slams) is just a recent trend and is not necessarily a good idea always. I think Stepanek will be a good coach.

Agreed again (it is getting tiresome!). Just look at Ljubicic! He just got one guy who was candidate for GOAT and let him distinctly better! How hard do you guys think is that?

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Djokovic is going ALL IN on his quest to be king again. Not sure I've ever seen a player WANT IT as much as Djokovic does. Maybe he will hire Hewitt or yours truly next to be his emotional adrenaline management consultant

 

[Federberg]

Agreed. In fact, even if he was "just an statistician", as he is a good one, it is a good addition. I guess people are underestimating some aspects of the game. Those guys play countless balls. There are a lot of useful statistics out there. In some cases it will mean less time on court against lesser players, which is already reason enough to hire one guy like that. Some times it could mean the difference between winning and losing against a good player -- just one of those in a year is a good enough reason.

Actually that's a job I would like to try myself, I am sure I would do it quite well (some other guys here on board too).



Agreed again (it is getting tiresome!). Just look at Ljubicic! He just got on guy who was candidate for GOAT and let him distinctly better! How hard do you guys think is that?

Are you really saying ljubicic did nothing?

 

[Busted]

This is a classic confusion about the role of a coach. The coach does not have to be a big time player themselves. However, they should not be a mere arm-chair quarterback and should have played the game themselves at some level or another. The notion of supercoaches (former players with 6+ slams) is just a recent trend and is not necessarily a good idea always. I think Stepanek will be a good coach.

If you are dissing Stepanek, then go ahead and diss Moya as well. This does not make sense.

My comment was more about the particular dynamics of Stepanek and Djokovic and NOT coaches in general. If it was all about needing a "supercoach" then I'd be crapping on Luthi and Ljubicic. Clearly they fit in well with Roger. Djokovic though was struggling mentally as well as physically last year. Boris is a jerk, but he was able to push and help Djokovic with the mental side of things. I just think when you've reached the level Djokovic has, with his personality, it may be harder for him to take crunch time advice from a guy who's never won anything. Sure, he's got Agassi there as a consultant but isn't Stepanek doing the bulk of the coaching? We'll see how it goes...but Stepanek could be the wrong coach at the wrong time.

 

[mrzz]

Are you really saying ljubicic did nothing?

No! Quite the opposite! (Just corrected one typo on my original post).

I probably didn't expressed myself decently. What I mean is: how the hell you get a guy who is close to perfection (all three of the big three are) and makes him visibly better? Because you can give credit to the other guys, but the backhand, the return and even the running forehand got visibly better basically since Ljubicic got in.

 

[Moxie]

This is a classic confusion about the role of a coach. The coach does not have to be a big time player themselves. However, they should not be a mere arm-chair quarterback and should have played the game themselves at some level or another. The notion of supercoaches (former players with 6+ slams) is just a recent trend and is not necessarily a good idea always. I think Stepanek will be a good coach.

If you are dissing Stepanek, then go ahead and diss Moya as well. This does not make sense.

I think this is a good point: that just because you won a bunch of Slams, doesn't mean you'd make a good coach. (People bring up Pete occasionally, and I don't get the feeling he'd make a good coach.) It must be about ability to analyze a player's game and those of others, create strategies, and probably most of all, have a good rapport with the player. Stepanek seems like a smart, chill guy, like Ljubicic for Roger. Moyà makes perfect sense for Rafa, because of the "nearly" family relationship they have. I do think an ex-player is critical. Lendl worked for Murray for specific reasons that we all understand, I think, but it doesn't mean that everyone needs a SuperCoach. Plus, Nole has Andre. Understandable if Agassi can't commit to a full schedule.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Ljubicic is a master coach. He is the first coach that Federer has had who as actually played and beaten all of the top players Fed is beating still. I think Ljubicic is a serious upgrade from Edberg, Annacone and Luthi. Ljubicic deserves the most credit for Fed's resurgence IMO.

 

[Moxie]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Ljubicic is a master coach. He is the first coach that Federer has had who as actually played and beaten all of the top players Fed is beating still. I think Ljubicic is a serious upgrade from Edberg, Annacone and Luthi. Ljubicic deserves the most credit for Fed's resurgence IMO.

But Luthi is still around, right? I thought he was always sort of perennial ballast.

 

[scoop]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Can't recall hearing Federer every publicly crediting Luthi in anything but vague references. Until Fed really pours the praise on Luthi it's only reasonable to assume he's more like a good mate or childhood chum, than any kind of special master strategic guru.

 

[Moxie]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Can't recall hearing Federer every publicly crediting Luthi in anything but vague references. Until Fed really pours the praise on Luthi it's only reasonable to assume he's more like a good mate or childhood chum, than any kind of special master strategic guru.

I think that's my point...he's there for stability. Continuity.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

Scoop Malinowski writes:

Can't recall hearing Federer every publicly crediting Luthi in anything but vague references. Until Fed really pours the praise on Luthi it's only reasonable to assume he's more like a good mate or childhood chum, than any kind of special master strategic guru.

This year, they gave "best Swiss coach" award to Luthi and Fed praised him a lot. Google up for recent announcements about this.