The Coach Effect

[Moxie]

Looking at Stan's later-career surge, much mention has been made of Magnus Norman. Perhaps the x-factor in Wawrinka's improved attitude and belief? Which brings to mind Lendl's effect on Murray's results, when he already had a great game. Another mention would be Peter Lundgren, who I believe came into Safin's life just in time to wrangle his head into shape to win the AO in '05. A little research tells me that Magnus Norman also coached Soderling, and Lundgren had stints with Bagdahtis, Dimitrov and Wawrinka.

The question is for especially those who are keener observers of coaches: how much credit goes to the coaches in some of these cases, and how much can a great coach really affect a players game, when it's nearly fully formed, or is it purely mental, at that point? Also, any other coaches you would call out that seemed to have direct effects on a player's results? Who are the best coaches in recent memory?

 

[tented]

Also, any other coaches you would call out that seemed to have direct effects on a player's results?

Great idea for a thread.

This part of your post immediately brought to mind Larry Stefanki, and the near-magic he worked on Gonzalez back in '06-'07, which culminated in his reaching the '07 AO final. He was playing incredibly. Much better than ever before. His semifinal against Haas is only eclipsed by Roger's SF against Roddick for the most memorable match of that tournament. (Although I know which one others remember. )

Stefanki was then lured away by Roddick, who went on to reach the '09 Wimbledon final -- the first time since '05.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

Here is my take, from the perspective as a coach to top level juniors.

Coaching is at the highest levels is a very complex thing to analyze.

There are many, many styles of coaching, and two aspects, the technical, and the mental.

Just focusing on Stan for a minute, having met Magnus Norman on a few occasions, he is an extremely humble, polite, and quite guy. I understand that Stand is shy and sensitive off court and Norman's personality is a perfect match for him. And in your face coach would not cut it.

Norman has improved Stan's confidence AND his fitness. He is a good 10 Lbs lighter then before Norman came board, and his movement is improved. He was not an elite mover previously.

Other coaching relationships can be strictly professional like Larry Stefanki with Rios, Henman, and Gonzalez, or they can be friendships, as with Stefanki and Roddick. DelPo considers his coaching team like family.

A coach will make a difference when he can get a player to commit to a style of play that works best for them, and can convince them to have tunnel vision and unrelenting dedication.

On the technical side, do you just have them work their strength, and not worry to much about weaknesses, as they are doing with Raonic, and as Nick Bolietierri did for years? Or do you shore up the weaknesses?

In the end it takes YEARS and years to develop an elite player. A coach may come along after much of the building blocks have been put in place and much of the hard work has been done, and at that LAST bit of a finishing touch. So much of it is timing.

I do not believe that coaching in general can produce instant results, but it is a good story.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

I think once a player's development is complete, the shots are where they are supposed to be or as good as they are going to get, the basic understanding of the game and how to construct a point is learned, a coaches job becomes more mental.

That is not to say it is any less important though...Changing a player's approach to the game, or making him develop a certain mental toughness on the court is probably way more difficult than teaching him a half decent volley. When Gullikson passed away, Annacone had a very hard job I think. Friend, coach, sounding board, psychologist...Pete's game needed no tweaking, and he always said that when you are on the court, there is nowhere to hide and that you cannot pass the ball, but I still believe Annacone's effect was huge.

But then there is Gil Reyes. He might not be a tennis coach but he is probably solely responsible for how Agassi turned his game around and became who he was later in his career. He could barely bench press 140 pounds and after Reyes, 350. Brad Gilbert got more credit of course , and some he deserved. I credit Gil Reyes for Agassi winning more slams after the age 29 than before. A clear case of changing someone's approach to fitness totally and building him a new body, with it bringing a tougher mental approach because I believe they are connected.

Lendl's effect on Murray cannot be denied, no? The forehand got better, mentally Andy got stronger and two slams later here we are. Too bad they could not build a better second serve but he is still young.

I believe you are on your own when you step on the court. But what you bring with you to the court in your head, from hours of training with your coach, can carry you a long way, and that's what separates the good coaches from the mediocre ones, in my opinion.

 

[JesuslookslikeBorg]

yes..gil reyes and his legendary "hill".

 

[Moxie]

I'm watching Nishikori trounce Cilic. Still both have been playing much better since taking on Michael Chang and Goran Ivanisovic, respectively. Commentator says that "there's nothing like having a Slam winner talking in your ear." I add them to the conversation.

 

[Federberg]

Let's not underestimate the effect of something as simple and obvious as... maturity. Stan's a grown man now, he knows what he wants - even left his wife for a bit - and has been going for it. As a consequence his results have been on an upward trajectory for quite sometime. That said, Magnus Norman certainly has form. While I would rather believe that the coach effect in this case has been the final piece of the jigsaw, it's just possible that Stan's growth and desire as a professional tennis player may have been enough to get him to this stage. I'm not convinced he wouldn't have got here without his coach..

 

[Kieran]

Pete Sampras said something to the effect that a good coach knows when to speak, and when not to. They're the sounding board and buttress for great players. There has to be a massive amount of respect and tact, let alone confidence in each other's ability, knowledge and understanding of the players role. Borg introduced the coach as Svengali - Lennart Bergelin's immobile face mirrored his charge, and had to. Borg brought that extra level to the game, through his coach, that they look after so much more than just technical correction.

Going back to Pete, he had Annacone, dropped him, flirted with other coaches and went back to Annacone, who knew him intimately and brought the best out of him almost immediately. A good coach is the final piece in the puzzle. You see that when it works, and you know it, when it doesn't work...

 

[Kieran]

[split] The Coach Effect

I like Mac, but he's not that guy who's going to get results for anybody seriously pursuing tennis as a career....

 

[Moxie]

RE: General tennis news

I like Mac, but he's not that guy who's going to get results for anybody seriously pursuing tennis as a career....

Why? Too much Mac, and not enough…("what was your name again?") :laydownlaughing I think his ego has come way down since his playing days, and he's a huge supporter of tennis. I'm glad that he might want to coach. Not sure if Andy wants to be the guinea pig, though. Anyway, I'd love to see it. (That's likely selfish.)

 

[Kieran]

RE: General tennis news

He's got a great TV personality, but he's no coach, and he's too much a yapper and in love with his own self to be a great coach. Lendl was an inspired choice, but Mac would be too scatty and scattered to show the same will and purpose...

 

[Moxie]

RE: General tennis news

He's got a great TV personality, but he's no coach, and he's too much a yapper and in love with his own self to be a great coach. Lendl was an inspired choice, but Mac would be too scatty and scattered to show the same will and purpose...

I think you're buying Mac from the old days. I think there might be a coach in him, yet. Maybe not for Murray, though. We'll see.

 

[GameSetAndMath]

RE: General tennis news

He already made a fool of himself by unilaterlaly offering his services as a coach to Fed
at the end of 2008 (when everybody was busy writing Fed off). Fed politely declined the
offer.

Looks like he learned nothing from that episode. Again, he is unilaterly offering his
services to Andy. At least he should do so behind the scenes through trusted
intermediaries and not via the media, if he has to have any chance. He cannot
be serious.

Although, Andy has not explicitly denied the possibility, if you read in between the
lines, I get the feeling that Mac will not make the cut.

 

[Luxilon Borg]

RE: General tennis news

He's got a great TV personality, but he's no coach, and he's too much a yapper and in love with his own self to be a great coach. Lendl was an inspired choice, but Mac would be too scatty and scattered to show the same will and purpose...

I think you're buying Mac from the old days. I think there might be a coach in him, yet. Maybe not for Murray, though. We'll see.

Mac will NEVER coach a top player. The reason? He has lived his whole life with everything being about HIM. Rule #1 I when coaching is that it is NOT about you.

If in some fantasy world Murray chose Mac, it would never work, they are too much alike. Moody, disheveled, and they take losses personally.

 

[Kieran]

RE: General tennis news

He's got a great TV personality, but he's no coach, and he's too much a yapper and in love with his own self to be a great coach. Lendl was an inspired choice, but Mac would be too scatty and scattered to show the same will and purpose...

I think you're buying Mac from the old days. I think there might be a coach in him, yet. Maybe not for Murray, though. We'll see.

I wouldn't buy him at any days as a coach! :snigger

The lads here are right, it's still all him. Anyway, I think the stuff needed to be a coach is hugely different to being opinionated and popular, and he's certainly this. I like Mac, and I'm glad he's still commentating, but really, I don't see any qualities there that could make him a decent coach...

 

[the AntiPusher]

RE: General tennis news

I like Mac, but he's not that guy who's going to get results for anybody seriously pursuing tennis as a career....

"You cannot be serious"

 

[tented]

RE: General tennis news

He's got a great TV personality, but he's no coach, and he's too much a yapper and in love with his own self to be a great coach. Lendl was an inspired choice, but Mac would be too scatty and scattered to show the same will and purpose...

I think you're buying Mac from the old days. I think there might be a coach in him, yet. Maybe not for Murray, though. We'll see.

I wouldn't buy him at any days as a coach! :snigger

The lads here are right, it's still all him. Anyway, I think the stuff needed to be a coach is hugely different to being opinionated and popular, and he's certainly this. I like Mac, and I'm glad he's still commentating, but really, I don't see any qualities there that could make him a decent coach...

I agree. He's too unfocussed and self-absorbed to be an effective coach for an elite player. He constantly seems to have a dozen or so projects and commitments going on at the same time, while always talking about his favorite subject: himself.

 

[Front242]

RE: General tennis news

He idolizes Nadal so he's the only player he'd probably want to coach anyway.

 

[Murat Baslamisli]

RE: General tennis news

I can see his younger bro being a much better coach than JMac.

 

[tented]

RE: General tennis news

I can see his younger bro being a much better coach than JMac.

Technically true, but I don't think he would be the right choice, either, for a guy like Novak.