Coaching by Mauresmo

Ratty · County player

RE: Coaching by Mauresmo

Madeline · Admin:Moderator + Tennis Legend

Ratty wrote:
Jaffa wrote:
I am so pleased that Mauresmo has turned it round for him. He has been fantastic since the start of the year. He could win the bloody thing now!
Words fail me (well actually no they don't, but you know what I mean). For months poor Amelie has been on the receiving end for wrecking Andy's game, and now she's suddenly the strategic genius.
Correlation does not equal causation!

Not from me. I said, "wait and see" for the first HALF of this year.

indiana · Tennis legend

Maybe, Ratty, if you took more time to read and consider the considered reasons most of the Amelie doubters gave for concerns ( and the amount of concern varied ) and also the considered reasons why some of these same people have now expressed more optimism ( not just because of results), you would be less lost for words.

Any thoughts youself about Andy and / or Amelie or just about your fellow posters ?

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

Ratty wrote:
Jaffa wrote:
I am so pleased that Mauresmo has turned it round for him. He has been fantastic since the start of the year. He could win the bloody thing now!
Words fail me (well actually no they don't, but you know what I mean). For months poor Amelie has been on the receiving end for wrecking Andy's game, and now she's suddenly the strategic genius.
Correlation does not equal causation!

A response to Ratty follows, that I strongly believe you shouldn't have to see if you don't want to, hence the spoiler to preserve your viewing experience. Move along, nothing to see here.

Spoiler

I'm really struggling to see the point here.

As far as I can tell, looking at their posting history, this is the first opinion that Jaffa has offered on this topic - it certainly is on this thread.

Therefore, they could easily have had a consistent view to the contrary of the general consensus, and just been waiting for an opportune moment when their belief in Ms. Mauresmo seemed as though it was beginning to be proven; such as reaching a Grand Slam Semi-Final, for example.

All that has happened is that someone has expressed a different opinion to that generally held by the majority of other correspondents.

I fail to understand why that should leave one lost for words.

Furthermore, there is clearly no evidence that all, or even a majority of, those that previously did express serious doubts about the appointment of Ms. Mauresmo, and events subsequent, have suddenly had a Damascene conversion and are now extolling her as some paragon of coaching virtue.

The position is consistent, most people that have expressed an opinion continue to be broadly skeptical or have guarded reservations. Some (like Madeline) have been consistently in favour of giving things time. A few others have offered grudging respect that the situation, at first glance, has not been as bad as they originally feared. That, though, is a quite entirely different thing altogether to your claim.

It appears to me that you have conflated the collective opinions of the many with the opinion of one, and used that as a basis on which to pass judgment on an entire group that offered no such opinion. This is disingenuous at best, more likely is simply demonstrably specious, and could uncharitably be viewed as mischievously mendacious.

Don't confuse the articles.

I disagree with Jaffa that Ms. Mauresmo has been the cause of any perceived turnaround - I don't think we can say either way whether there has been a demonstrable effect, or what the cause of that is if there is one. But, that is one persons, probably entirely consistent, view. There is no justifiable way to use that singular opinion to, as you do, attempt to suggest that the consensus of opinion on this subject has u-turned simply because of the most recent results.

'Poor Amelie' has been negatively critiqued in recent months by some - yes. One person expressed an opinion that Ms. Mauresmo can now be adjudged to be having a decisive positive impact - yes.

It is incorrect to infer effect on the former by the latter. They are not a subset of each other. In language as science, correlation is, indeed, not causation.

The temptation to follow suit and sign off with a sardonic smile, is, I'm ashamed to say, strong; but, I resist.

Apologies to Jaffa for assuming I could speak unsolicited on their behalf, and to all other members, the OP (original poster) included, because I know they don't like these sorts of posts - I'll go back to my default extended hibernation of lurking. Adieu!

Ratty · County player

I have no opinion about whether Amelie has had any effect on Andy's level of performance. It's not possible to measure that effect, and I can't see any point in speculating.

The fundamental problem is that there's no way of knowing whether he would have done better or worse with another coach, or to what extent variations in performance are due to coaching or to other factors.

My own opinion is that coaching makes little or no difference. That is based on the anecdotal observation that individual coaches can find it difficult to replicate their successes. For example Brad Gilbert was very successful with Agassi, but not so much with Murray or Roddick. Annacone was successful with Sampras but not so much with Henman. This suggests that luck plays a very significant part in their success.

But I don't actually know.

insomniacfolder · Challenger level

Ratty wrote:
I have no opinion about whether Amelie has had any effect on Andy's level of performance. It's not possible to measure that effect, and I can't see any point in speculating.
The fundamental problem is that there's no way of knowing whether he would have done better or worse with another coach, or to what extent variations in performance are due to coaching or to other factors.
My own opinion is that coaching makes little or no difference. That is based on the anecdotal observation that individual coaches can find it difficult to replicate their successes. For example Brad Gilbert was very successful with Agassi, but not so much with Murray or Roddick. Annacone was successful with Sampras but not so much with Henman. This suggests that luck plays a very significant part in their success.
But I don't actually know.

And that is why I find it occasionally worth taking Ratty to task.

Because every time they fully explain their opinion non-judgmentally, it's always an interesting, well balanced and worthy contribution, whether you agree with it or not.

Anyway, adieu!

indiana · Tennis legend

I am sure I am not alone in considering that Lendl had a huge effect on Andy.

The world and his wife may have been suggesting that Andy should be consistently more aggressive in his play ( and probably much less importantly improve his oncourt demeanour ).

Andy appointed Lendl and it happened under Lendl. Luck ? Not for me !

Ratty · County player

Fair points, and I'm bang to rights on the Jaffa front. Sorry dude ...

Ratty · County player

indiana wrote:
I am sure I am not alone in considering that Lendl had a huge effect on Andy.

Yes, this is certainly the consensus.

People love narratives, and of course this makes an attractive one: the wise old Master, who triumphantly conquered his own demons, emerges from his self-imposed seclusion to help the young Hopeful conquer the same demons.

And of course the consensus may be right. But I feel some bizarre need to labour the same point ad nauseam, which is that the extensive research and literature building on the pioneering work by Kahneman & Tversky in the 1970s shows that humans consistently draw incorrect conclusions from data sets, and in particular confuse correlation and causation. (Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise is a recent best-selling example of this literature.)

So if Lendl was to repeat his Murray success by coaching (say) Berdych and Gulbis to winning Slams, then I might be more inclined to credit him with some extraordinary powers. Until then my jury is out, as it were.

Coup Droit · Tennis legend

Do you get commission from Nate Silver, Ratty ? You are often pushing his work. Not saying your point is not true but Mr. Silver gave one of the worst, self-serving public lectures I've been to in the last couple of years. (That doesn't mean he's wrong either, of course . . . )

Jaffa · Challenger level

Fair points from all actually and I can completely get the points of view - isn't that what this board is about anyway?

I personally didn't want to judge her until after she'd had a pre season with him which was the reason why I'd not offered an opinion on her.

However, what always remained was the feeling for her to do well and I disagreed with the people who were negative about her early performance due to the reason I've just said.

I do disagree though that there hasn't been any improvements to Andy's game. It has been well documented for example that the service action has changed which has been vindicated by his vastly improved service statistics.

He's also hitting the ball with a lot more pop on the forehand side which I believe is down to Mauresmo.

I do agree however that the movement side of things is nothing to do with Amelie.

Maybe any coach could've done the above things as you say Ratty, but we'll never know, so let's just take it at face value - she appears to be doing a good job and long may it continue for Andy and british tennis

indiana · Tennis legend

Ratty wrote:
indiana wrote:
I am sure I am not alone in considering that Lendl had a huge effect on Andy.
Yes, this is certainly the consensus.
People love narratives, and of course this makes an attractive one: the wise old Master, who triumphantly conquered his own demons, emerges from his self-imposed seclusion to help the young Hopeful conquer the same demons.
And of course the consensus may be right. But I feel some bizarre need to labour the same point ad nauseam, which is that the extensive research and literature building on the pioneering work by Kahneman & Tversky in the 1970s shows that humans consistently draw incorrect conclusions from data sets, and in particular confuse correlation and causation. (Nate Silver's The Signal and the Noise is a recent best-selling example of this literature.)
So if Lendl was to repeat his Murray success by coaching (say) Berdych and Gulbis to winning Slams, then I might be more inclined to credit him with some extraordinary powers. Until then my jury is out, as it were.

Here's what I said in my last post in full :

"I am sure I am not alone in considering that Lendl had a huge effect on Andy.

The world and his wife may have been suggesting that Andy should be consistently more aggressive in his play ( and probably much less importantly improve his oncourt demeanour ).

Andy appointed Lendl and it happened under Lendl. Luck ? Not for me !"

As is clear, I was not basing my opinion about Lendl just on results, but significantly on the consistent aggression that Lendl brought to Andy's play, though in my opinion the latter largely led to the latter. I have closely followed Andy long enough and have eyes so I know that his game significantly changed under Lendl

Apparently your own narrative is to imply I am following some general narrative about the wise old master coming to rescue Andy etc, when I actually made specific points about change - more aggression and more positive oncourt behavior, which I have made before. The fact that Lendl had been there, done it, probably made Andy more willing to take on his thoughts on change, but the actual change was there for all to see.

I find discussions proceed easier when folk take account of what the person they are replying to was actually saying rather than use it as a very loose vehicle for their own theories and / or reference to research of others, very often referencing statistical theories or data research that have passed me by in spite of having studied in the field. But an impressive reading collection you have smile

-- Edited by indiana on Wednesday 28th of January 2015 11:30:21 AM

EddietheEagle · County player

Has there been any significant change in Murray's serve action? None that I can see, not technical change anyway. He looks to have have narrowed the gap between his serve speeds but I've seen no stats to verify that. If a coach could just step in and modify an established action Tommy Cooper-style - just like that, we'd have hundreds of Pete Samprasses knocking around.

I suspect Murray's inability to produce aggressive spin when he needs it most, lies partly in his wrist or back and partly in his head. His action is unlikely to change significantly at this point of his career anyway and I doubt Mauresmo would start interfering to seek technical change in a stroke where she has no obvious reputational expertise herself and where there could be a downside.

My take on Mauresmo as coach is, as said before, that Andy has a different perspective to most, born of the influence of his mother in his earlier tennis development. He's just comfortable in that situation where others might not be. I likened him to Jimmy Connors in that respect. Mauresmo has great playing experience herself and by all accounts she's a good coach. With all top players possessing a certain stubbornness in their make-up, he'll want to ensure his relationship with Mauresmo works out, given all the doubting. Arguably, he's had too many coaches already and will naturally strive for continuation and stability.

indiana · Tennis legend

EddietheEagle wrote:
Has there been any significant change in Murray's serve action? None that I can see, not technical change anyway. He looks to have have narrowed the gap between his serve speeds but I've seen no stats to verify that. If a coach could just step in and modify an established action Tommy Cooper-style - just like that, we'd have hundreds of Pete Samprasses knocking around.

I suspect Murray's inability to produce aggressive spin when he needs it most, lies partly in his wrist or back and partly in his head. His action is unlikely to change significantly at this point of his career anyway and I doubt Mauresmo would start interfering to seek technical change in a stroke where she has no obvious reputational expertise herself and where there could be a downside.

My take on Mauresmo as coach is, as said before, that Andy has a different perspective to most, born of the influence of his mother in his earlier tennis development. He's just comfortable in that situation where others might not be. I likened him to Jimmy Connors in that respect. Mauresmo has great playing experience herself and by all accounts she's a good coach. With all top players possessing a certain stubbornness in their make-up, he'll want to ensure his relationship with Mauresmo works out, given all the doubting. Arguably, he's had too many coaches already and will naturally strive for continuation and stability.

I heard suggestions by some pundit on Radio 5 Live the other day ( I forget who ) that Andy's serve has actually returned more to the action and ball toss he had before he had fairly persistent back issues, having had to adapt it a bit in the period before his back op and on an ongoing basis until he perhaps now has full confidence in his back again.

EddietheEagle · County player

We all fiddle around with our serves while active players, trying to get better and better. I'm sure Murray does that too. We have good days and bad days, just one of life's intangibles. His serve problems as I see them are first, a low first serve percentage sometimes and second, a completely dodgy second serve at times which then puts more pressure on his game generally. And we all know how you can crumble when under pressure.

First point. He can produce a bullet first serve, 135/137 mph. But what's the point of that when they fly too long or his ball toss drops and he finds the net? Huge amount of wasted energy when you do that. In a long match it adds up and creates serve fatigue. He looks to have corrected that by dropping his speed somewhat and importantly, utilising more of his more natural action which imo is a slice not a heavy topspin like Sampras, say. He's now producing a really good first serve out wide into the deuce court and has got many more easy points this tournament using that serve. Obviously he's always had that serve but it looks as though he may have tweaked it somewhat.

Second serve. We've all seen the low speed, second serve that lands in the middle of the box. The info has done the rounds and all the ATP guys and their coaches recognise that and it's where Murray is probably the most vulnerable. Dani will be imparting his new client with whatever he knows on that weakness. It's adds intrigue to their next match. The answer, obviously, is more aggressive spin and, probably, confidence too but I'm not going to venture further than that. He must know in himself what he has to do. I don't know, technically, why he cannot produce at times.

I hasten to add, second serve apart perhaps, this is all stuff of the Dave Brailsford marginal gains type. Murray has a serve generally befitting the world class player he is.

-- Edited by EddietheEagle on Wednesday 28th of January 2015 02:10:31 PM