Do successful players make unsuccessful coaches? [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Do successful players make unsuccessful coaches?

Roger the Dodger
07-24-2012, 06:42 PM
Do successful players make unsuccessful coaches?
OR
Do unsuccessful players make successful coaches?

To define the terms, by successful, of course I mean considerable world-renowned success, not just winning Umag and Gstaad and then off to coaching.

Of course, the assumption in my title rises from watching most players from the last two eras. I don't know the coaching scene from say 2003 onwards.

But I remember that associating with the great Jimmy Connors didn't really work for Roddick. Similarly, Annacone who won three minnows in his whole career and fits the bill of unsuccessful player in that sense, has coached legends like Sampras and Roger. So that's the anomaly here.

Words of wisdom from MTFrs, please.

HKz
07-24-2012, 06:55 PM
I wouldn't necessarily say it is one or the other, however, I do believe the reason why players not as successful as the greats (not always truly "unsuccessful") make great coaches is because oftentimes their games were limited, so they perhaps understand how to maximize their strengths and they heavily played the game tactically giving perhaps better insight. A legend at the game may not see it in the same light, as for many of them, winning matches was a very natural touch for them and doesn't really involve that same thinking as those with less fortunate skills.

I think it is interesting to note (also it may point in favor to what I have mentioned) that many of the most renowned/successful coaches were not big hitters. Brad Gilbert, Paul Annacone, Magnus Norman, (I'd consider him successful now), Larry Stefanki, etc. I think Jimbo was a bit of a gamble, we all know his personality on court when he was young, so who knows if that affected his relationship with Andy. Plus, I thought game wise it was a completely shitty direction for Andy to head towards. Sure, I'm positive that much of it just had to do with getting some fire in his camp and revitalizing his spirits a bit, but certainly game wise, Roddick wants to be on the opposite spectrum of Connors..

TBkeeper
07-24-2012, 06:58 PM
Do successful players make unsuccessful coaches?
OR
Do unsuccessful players make successful coaches?

To define the terms, by successful, of course I mean considerable world-renowned success, not just winning Umag and Gstaad and then off to coaching.

Of course, the assumption in my title rises from watching most players from the last two eras. I don't know the coaching scene from say 2003 onwards.

But I remember that associating with the great Jimmy Connors didn't really work for Roddick. Similarly, Annacone who won three minnows in his whole career and fits the bill of unsuccessful player in that sense, has coached legends like Sampras and Roger. So that's the anomaly here.

Words of wisdom from MTFrs, please.

Hey RTG is it me or lately MTF is a little bit smarter place ?

Roger the Dodger
07-24-2012, 07:22 PM
Hey RTG is it me or lately MTF is a little bit smarter place ?

Just you wait till Nadal returns on tour. ;)

TBkeeper
07-24-2012, 07:31 PM
Just you wait till Nadal returns on tour. ;)

oh ... i forgot about the most hateful tards my mistake ...

Litotes
07-24-2012, 07:36 PM
I agree that the very successful has a relatively low success rate, but they have a very low participation rate also. Definitely not statistically significant. How many unsuccessful players have gone on to become unsuccessful coaches? I know a few of those, and there are surely lots of others.

If Borg, Sampras and/or Agassi decided to take up coaching, would they be successful? Who knows? I feel fairly certain their services would be in demand, though. The odds might still be better in their case than for Mr. Unknown. And one thing is for sure, these kinds of coaches is good for sponsors, as they attract media interest.

sleptember
07-24-2012, 07:42 PM
It's likely that an "unsuccessful" player - having achieved so little - has a stronger desire to impact the game through coaching than a successful player who is fulfilled and loaded.

Choreos
07-24-2012, 08:06 PM
It's likely that an "unsuccessful" player - having achieved so little - has a stronger desire to impact the game through coaching than a successful player who is fulfilled and loaded.

Even by going off that, it means that more unsuccessful players will be coaches. Hard to say who will make more successful coaches, I personally don't think there's much of a connection between the ability to play tennis and the ability to coach at the pro level. Most pros understand how the game works, (except a few like Monfils and such) so it really is all up to how good they are at coaching.

Freak3yman84
07-24-2012, 08:11 PM
It's not totally black and white like you mentioned. Some unsuccessful players probably make unsuccessful coaches too. But for a vast majority, successful players do not make successful coaches and vise versa. Probably do to the fact that successful players usually have lots of natural talent so they might not have been taught as much as some players with less natural talent do.

RForever
07-24-2012, 08:33 PM
Good coach needs understanding of the game but also totally different skills than a player. So there is no logic in it. Some player has it, another not. Look at Mourinho, probably the best football coach and he was not a good or successful player.


Sent from my iPad using VS Free

Roger the Dodger
07-24-2012, 09:09 PM
I think it is interesting to note (also it may point in favor to what I have mentioned) that many of the most renowned/successful coaches were not big hitters. Brad Gilbert, Paul Annacone, Magnus Norman, (I'd consider him successful now), Larry Stefanki, etc. I think Jimbo was a bit of a gamble, we all know his personality on court when he was young, so who knows if that affected his relationship with Andy. Plus, I thought game wise it was a completely shitty direction for Andy to head towards. Sure, I'm positive that much of it just had to do with getting some fire in his camp and revitalizing his spirits a bit, but certainly game wise, Roddick wants to be on the opposite spectrum of Connors..

I always felt Connors would have been a better coach to the other Andy, given 'fire' is what he has perennially required. Funnily enough, Lendl should have fit the bill all the same but the results aren't there to see. When you look at the past, was firing Mulligun even the right thing to do for Murray camp?