philwrig wrote:

---

Just had a little thought with regards potential candidates. If Woodforde turned it down on financial terms, the even more high profile names would have wanted more £'ss, we forget that Laura isn't a top 10 player and therefore cannot afford the big bucks to attract a top coach. The LTA funded Brad Gilbert, at a time when Andy wouldn't have had the funds to employ him. So that has to be a factor which I hadn't considered.

Looked up Mark Wellington's credentials, who is an Englishman based in Florida, and found out that he has helped alot of high profile names, but generally speaking earlier on in their careers. e.g Azerenka in 2009 an important time in her career but still before her big breakthrough. Also Sharapova when she was only 17.

www.wsperformance.com/about-mark/introduction.html

-- Edited by philwrig on Wednesday 20th of November 2013 10:45:59 PM

---

I presume that most marquee coaches at this exalted level would charge a retainer plus a very steamy percentage of tournament winnings plus specific bonuses for GS performance, overall ranking, etc. I'd imagine that the retainer is more than a nominal sum, but still a mere fraction of the potential remuneration from working with a top player winning titles (i.e. share of earnings and bonuses make up the vast bulk). I presume that's how things work with Mr Lendl. The more likely the coaching fraternity believes a player is a future superstar, the more likely overall coach remuneration will be structured towards results/player earnings rather than the retainer.....so it is very "affordable" in that sense. Clearly if there is doubt in the coach's mind about the player's potential/work ethic/focus, etc, deals will be far more skewed towards a big retainer, to minimise risk for the coach. Given the massively up and down performances from Laura to date and her reputation (fair or unfair) as a player with a questionable work ethic/focus, I'd imagine very few star coaches would consider taking her on full time without a massive up front retainer element........

......all I'm saying is that there may be an element of chicken and egg here...... without consistent performances and a reputation for hard work Laura represents a risk to a "brand" coach, hence coach remuneration might be very skewed to upfront retainer payments, which makes them very expensive (without the earnings to afford the retainer), which leaves Laura with tier 2 coaches or on-off working relationships, which leads to inconsistency, lack of focus, etc etc. Furthermore it is VERY unusual for a potential "star player" to let it be known that they were turned down by a coach or simply couldn't afford them.......what kind of message is that giving off?

There may be BAGGAGE issues at play here IMHO: the top coaching fraternity may basically be saying......."Give us a sign, Laura, because at the moment we're not convinced".

Coup Droit wrote:

---

I agree with part of that, Korri, but as steven (and someone else) pointed out earlier, Laura has actually earned a lot more than most of her contemporaries of a similar standing - because she out-performs at slams (and this has been pretty consistent).
So, for a percentage-based coach (and, yes, all those I've heard of are on the sort of set-up you mention, give or take), Laura is actually a good bet.

I can't believe that a girl with her game, her earnings this year, and her potential tennis earnings, would have trouble finding a top coach. After all, a lot of top coaches have quite a bit of chutzpah themselves and think they'll be the one to 'turn' someone around. Might be completely wrong though . . .

---

Yes, but deal structures (fixed vs performance-related elements) for the best coaches will be based on what coaches think players WILL be able to achieve not what they HAVE achieved in the past year or how much money they already have in the bank. If coaches think Laura is a risk, they will upweight the fixed element or if they believe more in other players, they will simply look further afield. The other issue is the fact that Laura keeps dumping coaches every 6 months. So If I were a top name coach and if I held the balance of power, I would insist on a guaranteed minimum term and specific severance terms.....as I said there is probably BAGGAGE involved here.....if Lauara had a history of longer coaching partnerships she might find things easier when trying to attract the very best in the sport.