Why do pathetic players become ‘good’ coaches?

Simple. The greats don’t want to stoop to take all the BS and humiliation that you attract from all directions, including players, as a coach. Translation: There’s a huge void to be filled. And if the losers are the only ones stepping up to the challenge, something is bound to stick when so much crap is thrown at the wall.

So, they are there because of a huge default. You think Connors, Sampras or Borg would have the taken the humiliation and abuse Gilbert took from Murray? Or Connors would have stayed with Roddick for as long as he did, if Roddick as much as raised his pinky finger at him?

Besides, these losers have no where else to go. They are highly motivated to hang on to the last straw after making the wrong career decision, as far as success is concerned, at least.

How about Federer or Agassi taking the battering Chris Fowler dishes out to the ‘genius’ coaches on air for the whole world to watch? Can you see them kissing Fowler’s ass to save their job?

So why do these losers take it? It’s because they have no place to go. You think Chris Fowler and the whole ESPN establishment knows it? You bet!!!!

John McEnroe is the only one amongst the former players who is able to hold his own and then some against these booth people.

So it’s not that the bad players make good coaches, it’s just that it involves demeaning yourself to such a great degree that the real bright minds of the game stay away to protect their dignity and self esteem.

It then just boils down to the numbers game. The greats when deciding on a coach have just these losers to choose from. Once they get a Sampras or a Agassi stamp they suddenly become geniuses.

You think Agassi alone can take all of them together and beat the crap out of them? You bet!!!!

Come to think of it, if this BS that I just came up with is true, I can be an excellent coach. I qualify at every freaking basis and then some. Can I choose a female, please? And a ‘private’ court?

I guarantee tennis greats. It could be the next generation though.

Shouldn’t ‘average’ be the true determination of a GOAT in any sport?

In tennis, you should set a minimum bar, lets say, seven majors. Anyone at or above seven should be averaged out to determine who the most efficient player was. Some play longer than others, but does it really matter?

Like Jordan scored fewer baskets than Karim but it’s the average per game that determines who was better at it. Even when comparing Kobe with Jordan, don’t they resort to the averages to make their point?

Don Bradman, the cricket master, averaged 99 runs per outing. Beyond that does it really matter how many centuries or half centuries he made and if someone has more of them now? As long as you are below 99 you are not in the running. Simple as that.

Of course there are various factors leading to one player playing more years than others. If you do play longer than others and manage to accumulate more hardware, you deserve props for it, but that shouldn’t get you to the top of the chart?

It’s like playing darts. It’s not how many times you hit the bull’s eye that matters, it’s in how many attempts that determines how good a player you are, isn’t it?

It’s the purest form of calculating true greatness by eliminating the calendar altogether.

Bonds may have hit the most home runs, but even if you ignore the steroids BS, shouldn’t the next obvious question be “In how many games?”.

Longevity of your career and the subsequent increase in spoils shouldn’t blindly elevate you to GOAT status. There could be so many reasons for that to happen like with Kareem Abdul Jabbar. If Magic hadn’t joined the team and taken the pressure off Karim, he wouldn’t have had the long run he had at that level. While your staying power is an attribute in itself despite what sustained it, it shouldn’t be the sole reason to put someone on that hallowed pedestal of a GOAT.

So who is the most efficient gatherer of Grand Slams? Is it Borg?

Gerard?

Recurrence of mononucleosis? From arbit. Thanks.

ARBIT

NEW YORK — Croatia’s Mario Ancic withdrew from the U.S. Open on Tuesday with a recurrence of mononucleosis, the second straight year the 25th-ranked player was forced to miss the tournament.

Ancic, a former Wimbledon semifinalist, was slowed throughout the 2007 season because of mononucleosis. He pulled out of the Open last August because of an injured right shoulder.

Ancic beat Roger Federer in the first round at Wimbledon in 2002. That had been Federer’s most recent loss there until Rafael Nadal beat him in the final this year.

Can this be the reason…….?
http://sports.espn.go.com/sports/tennis/news/story?id=3520871

Olympic rants.

Space for your Olympic thoughts.

Who do you think Federer is standing with?

Some guy with a yellow microphone, that’s it. WHAT WHAT WHAT? What were YOU thinking? Oh, you mean to his left? I am not too sure, but I think I have a pretty good guess.

Federer to carry the Swiss flag at Olympics. And that’s freaking news?

“It’s wonderful that I can carry the flag for the Swiss delegation on my birthday,” he said. “It’s well known that I still have a score to settle with the Olympics and being handed this honour for a second time will give me extra motivation.”

Who else were they thinking? Who was the second choice? A cobbler? With the way things stand and look today, he should be doing that till he is dead.

You think we have a dilemma here with that? You bet!!!! Or has someone already been chosen? Does anyone really even care over here?

The ONLY event that may conjure up some emotions in the US is if the US basketball team starts to falter. OK, the Phelps deal with Spitz too. That’s freaking it. And if the team dominates and Phelps loses even one gold to take him out of contention, food channel rating will go through the roof, unless of course Paris Hilton goes to jail again.

What’s next on the list of events to lose fans? Britney’s crotch?

Has Djokovic’s inconsistency on hard courts left the door open for Federer at the US Open?

Granted Federer has spiralled down to his lowest, but is anyone even interested in filling the void? Isn’t this the time you go on a tear seizing the opportunity to break through and solidify your position as the world’s No. 3 player?

Either Djokovic has come to terms that Federer is done and there IS no opportunity to grab and wants to take his time maturing to avoid undue pressure, or he is too naive to expect a much wider window for a shot at the No. 1 rank and Grand Slams even at age 21.

If it’s the former the ratio of pleasure to pain is so lopsided that it’s understandable not to go ballistic on the circumstances.

Nevertheless, if you are Federer, you see the opening. The last two matches Federer played against Ginepri and Karlovic were clearly off the mark, but they were both close, specially the Karlovic one. Translation: If those were the direct result of the heartbreaking loss at Wimbledon, assuming the Halle and beyond run had more to do with form than the surface, then as with any emotion, this one is going to subside with time too. Which logically can mean only one thing: Federer’s return to his old self validating the run on grass as real.

The big question is how long it will take for the Wimbledon wound to heal, considering the added affect these two losses and more will only exacerbatethe the damage and stifle the recovery mode even longer. After all, post Estoril right upto the Wimbledon final, barring the thrashing at Roland Garros, the graph was clearly moving north from the disaster from January to March.

If Djokovic had won at Toronto or Cincy or both, it would have added another stroke in pushing Federer to the brink. Although Nadal’s performance on hard courts has been impressive, it does have holes. The difference in Federer’s game, even now, from Nadal’s game is a lot more than with Djokovic’s – on hard courts. Besides, the No. 1 transfer coupled with the surface and the physical toll is most likely to cool off Nadal from this hot run he has been for months now.

Murray may have sounded his arrival but from Federer’s point of view it highlighted Djokovic’s incapability to win more than Murray’s emergence as a viable threat.

Freaking point is this: The door is still ajar. It getting shut is still mostly on Federer, despite Nadal’s run. Can that motivate the bejesus out of Federer, or he will just narrow the opening even further?