Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Five Thirty-Eight)   "The average career-high singles ranking of the coaches working with the top 20 women is 896, and the coaches for the top 20 men have an average ranking of 254." TL;DR: Being a good player doesn't always translate to being a good coach   (fivethirtyeight.com) divider line
    More: Obvious, Tennis, Martina Hingis, Rafael Nadal, Grand Slam, The Championships, Wimbledon, Serena Williams, Venus Williams, Martina Navratilova  
•       •       •

292 clicks; posted to Sports » on 19 Jan 2022 at 12:20 PM (16 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2022-01-19 12:13:04 PM  
Fark Sports Tab: All tennis, all the time!

*punches out lacrosse and soccer dorks, takes their lunch money*

Errrr, should have said something along the lines of "It isn't necessary for a good coach to have been a good player."

I think that it would be more likely in team sports for a good player not to automatically be a good coach because there are a lot of moving parts behind the scenes and it isn't just one athlete to concern yourself with. You can't account for athleticism and the like but I've got to think there is more of a one for one transfer with individual sports than team sports.

There is also the factor of top former players being less likely in need of earning a paycheck from a standard job.
 
2022-01-19 12:13:57 PM  
Those who cannot do, teach.

/DNRTFA
//Those who cannot teach, administrate
///3
 
2022-01-19 12:15:20 PM  
Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.
 
2022-01-19 12:35:21 PM  
This was all the evidence we needed that talent =/= coaching ability

Fark user imageView Full Size
 
2022-01-19 12:39:28 PM  
Generally true in football and baseball, I think Dusty Baker was actually pretty good though.
 
2022-01-19 12:43:11 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.


CTRL-F: "Revenue" 0/0

The task of finding receptive ears is not helped by consistently executing the same knowingly bad faith presentation, though it does an unparalleled job of preaching to the choir.
 
2022-01-19 12:45:30 PM  
I don't want to overstate the obvious here but highly ranked tennis players make millions and millions of dollars. Thus they are unlikely to want to spend their post-playing career filling up the ball machine for relative peanuts.
 
2022-01-19 12:48:06 PM  

Bathtub Cynic: Generally true in football and baseball, I think Dusty Baker was actually pretty good though.


There are metrics for it which would come up with a far better example I'm sure but due to him being with the Reds, Lou Piniella is the first name I thought of when it comes to a good player also being a good coach/manager.
 
2022-01-19 12:48:41 PM  

Bathtub Cynic: Generally true in football and baseball, I think Dusty Baker was actually pretty good though.


He was.   Bill James conjectures that many great managers were mediocre players who learned to adapt to stay in the majors.  It makes sense.    Dusty wasn't great, but he was very popular everywhere he went.   He would be a fine hitting coach for any team.  I wouldn't trust him with any pitching staff tho.
 
2022-01-19 12:50:26 PM  

WoodyHayes: Bathtub Cynic: Generally true in football and baseball, I think Dusty Baker was actually pretty good though.

There are metrics for it which would come up with a far better example I'm sure but due to him being with the Reds, Lou Piniella is the first name I thought of when it comes to a good player also being a good coach/manager.


Pete Rose would have that claim better than anyone in the modern ears except for being a gambler and a jerk. Pinella for sure.
 
2022-01-19 12:53:55 PM  

JohnBigBootay: I don't want to overstate the obvious here but highly ranked tennis players make millions and millions of dollars. Thus they are unlikely to want to spend their post-playing career filling up the ball machine for relative peanuts.


Not only that, but it's intensive and unrewarded. You are more of a trainer than a coach.
 
2022-01-19 12:57:24 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.


It's hard to hear but even if money had nothing to do with sports at all, men's versions of sports would nearly always be the preferred, due to speed and size. The most comparable of the popular team sports, basketball and soccer, the women's versions are almost the same as the men's. But that "almost" does alot of work. I don't see nearly the difference in tennis play, but I'd imagine anyone who watches alot of tennis does notice differences.
 
2022-01-19 1:13:32 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.


No...
 
2022-01-19 1:21:43 PM  

Fisty Bum: This was all the evidence we needed that talent =/= coaching ability

[Fark user image 594x416]


tfw you realize not a goddamn one of these guys can see the future
 
2022-01-19 1:36:25 PM  

Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.

It's hard to hear but even if money had nothing to do with sports at all, men's versions of sports would nearly always be the preferred, due to speed and size. The most comparable of the popular team sports, basketball and soccer, the women's versions are almost the same as the men's. But that "almost" does alot of work. I don't see nearly the difference in tennis play, but I'd imagine anyone who watches alot of tennis does notice differences.


I'm old enough to remember the Navratilova/Evert days, when women's tennis was more popular.  And the prize money stayed  lower.  So, hard to hear has nothing to do with it.
 
2022-01-19 1:40:12 PM  
Showing talent and explaining how to maximize talent are two different skills.
 
2022-01-19 1:49:03 PM  

Stud Gerbil: Bathtub Cynic: Generally true in football and baseball, I think Dusty Baker was actually pretty good though.

He was.   Bill James conjectures that many great managers were mediocre players who learned to adapt to stay in the majors.  It makes sense.    Dusty wasn't great, but he was very popular everywhere he went.   He would be a fine hitting coach for any team.  I wouldn't trust him with any pitching staff tho.


The more obvious answer, IMO, is that the majority of the players you're going to be managing / coaching are going to be journeyman-type players, not superstars. Someone who's been there as a mediocre player is going to be more familiar with how to get more out of them. For the most part, a Michael Jordan or a David Ortiz is going to get you points or get on base no matter what; the successful coaches are the ones who can get the most out of the Steve Kerrs and Bill Muellers of the world - those are the players for whom coaching and scheme can make the biggest difference. Whereas, for guys who are superstars, they are so much more talented that they're doing things that even most pro players can't do, so their advice is useless to most of the team.
 
2022-01-19 2:02:54 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.

It's hard to hear but even if money had nothing to do with sports at all, men's versions of sports would nearly always be the preferred, due to speed and size. The most comparable of the popular team sports, basketball and soccer, the women's versions are almost the same as the men's. But that "almost" does alot of work. I don't see nearly the difference in tennis play, but I'd imagine anyone who watches alot of tennis does notice differences.

I'm old enough to remember the Navratilova/Evert days, when women's tennis was more popular.  And the prize money stayed  lower.  So, hard to hear has nothing to do with it.


Was it more popular? Advertising dollars raised the pay outs. If women's tennis was in fact more popular (as in, always more viewership than mens tennis) the advertisers be paying more, the payouts would be higher.

So either the officials on the women's side pocketed the extra money, or it was not in fact more popular. Advertisers don't care who is playing, viewership = money.
 
2022-01-19 2:22:25 PM  

Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.

It's hard to hear but even if money had nothing to do with sports at all, men's versions of sports would nearly always be the preferred, due to speed and size. The most comparable of the popular team sports, basketball and soccer, the women's versions are almost the same as the men's. But that "almost" does alot of work. I don't see nearly the difference in tennis play, but I'd imagine anyone who watches alot of tennis does notice differences.

I'm old enough to remember the Navratilova/Evert days, when women's tennis was more popular.  And the prize money stayed  lower.  So, hard to hear has nothing to do with it.

Was it more popular? Advertising dollars raised the pay outs. If women's tennis was in fact more popular (as in, always more viewership than mens tennis) the advertisers be paying more, the payouts would be higher.

So either the officials on the women's side pocketed the extra money, or it was not in fact more popular. Advertisers don't care who is playing, viewership = money.


Yes, because the relationship between sponsorship money and player payouts is absolutely direct.

And here I thought we might be having a reasonable conversation.
 
2022-01-19 2:33:03 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.

It's hard to hear but even if money had nothing to do with sports at all, men's versions of sports would nearly always be the preferred, due to speed and size. The most comparable of the popular team sports, basketball and soccer, the women's versions are almost the same as the men's. But that "almost" does alot of work. I don't see nearly the difference in tennis play, but I'd imagine anyone who watches alot of tennis does notice differences.

I'm old enough to remember the Navratilova/Evert days, when women's tennis was more popular.  And the prize money stayed  lower.  So, hard to hear has nothing to do with it.

Was it more popular? Advertising dollars raised the pay outs. If women's tennis was in fact more popular (as in, always more viewership than mens tennis) the advertisers be paying more, the payouts would be higher.

So either the officials on the women's side pocketed the extra money, or it was not in fact more popular. Advertisers don't care who is playing, viewership = money.

Yes, because the relationship between sponsorship money and player payouts is absolutely direct.

And here I thought we might be having a reasonable conversation.


Yes, because advertisers walk away from more money all the time...


Whenever you want to explain how something with less viewers which means, less advertising dollars, is somehow "more popular" I will be here. Nor sure how else we can define popular outside of having more viewers.
 
2022-01-19 2:34:20 PM  

Benevolent Misanthrope: Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.

It's hard to hear but even if money had nothing to do with sports at all, men's versions of sports would nearly always be the preferred, due to speed and size. The most comparable of the popular team sports, basketball and soccer, the women's versions are almost the same as the men's. But that "almost" does alot of work. I don't see nearly the difference in tennis play, but I'd imagine anyone who watches alot of tennis does notice differences.

I'm old enough to remember the Navratilova/Evert days, when women's tennis was more popular.  And the prize money stayed  lower.  So, hard to hear has nothing to do with it.

Was it more popular? Advertising dollars raised the pay outs. If women's tennis was in fact more popular (as in, always more viewership than mens tennis) the advertisers be paying more, the payouts would be higher.

So either the officials on the women's side pocketed the extra money, or it was not in fact more popular. Advertisers don't care who is playing, viewership = money.

Yes, because the relationship between sponsorship money and player payouts is absolutely direct.

And here I thought we might be having a reasonable conversation.


Or are you saying there was more money in women's but they paid the women less and kept the money? That I could certainly believe, but you aren't being specific.
 
2022-01-19 2:35:55 PM  

Fisty Bum: This was all the evidence we needed that talent =/= coaching ability

[Fark user image 594x416]


A good coach needs to be able to work with average players.  A generational talent never had to work through the challenges an average player has to struggle with.  The advice of "Just shoot a one timer to upper blocker side" doesn't work for a player who doesn't have that level of accuracy with a moving puck.
 
2022-01-19 2:55:38 PM  

Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Bathtub Cynic: Benevolent Misanthrope: Tl ; dr - women's sports still gets the leftovers and lesser quality resources.

It's hard to hear but even if money had nothing to do with sports at all, men's versions of sports would nearly always be the preferred, due to speed and size. The most comparable of the popular team sports, basketball and soccer, the women's versions are almost the same as the men's. But that "almost" does alot of work. I don't see nearly the difference in tennis play, but I'd imagine anyone who watches alot of tennis does notice differences.

I'm old enough to remember the Navratilova/Evert days, when women's tennis was more popular.  And the prize money stayed  lower.  So, hard to hear has nothing to do with it.

Was it more popular? Advertising dollars raised the pay outs. If women's tennis was in fact more popular (as in, always more viewership than mens tennis) the advertisers be paying more, the payouts would be higher.

So either the officials on the women's side pocketed the extra money, or it was not in fact more popular. Advertisers don't care who is playing, viewership = money.

Yes, because the relationship between sponsorship money and player payouts is absolutely direct.

And here I thought we might be having a reasonable conversation.

Or are you saying there was more money in women's but they paid the women less and kept the money? That I could certainly believe, but you aren't being specific.


I'm saying the tournament organizers payed the women less and kept the money.
 
2022-01-19 3:26:05 PM  

Bathtub Cynic: WoodyHayes: Bathtub Cynic: Generally true in football and baseball, I think Dusty Baker was actually pretty good though.

There are metrics for it which would come up with a far better example I'm sure but due to him being with the Reds, Lou Piniella is the first name I thought of when it comes to a good player also being a good coach/manager.

Pete Rose would have that claim better than anyone in the modern ears except for being a gambler and a jerk. Pinella for sure.


Larry Bird
 
2022-01-19 3:34:44 PM  
WTF comparing MLB baseball managers to tennis coaches? MLB managers also make many millions of dollars. ALL MLB managers make bank. I'm sure a few tennis coaches make some bucks with top players but the vast majority do not. I think the lowest outside MLB managers is still over 800k and don't forget it adds to the best pension in pro sports not to mention the  endorsements.apples to pomegranates.
 
2022-01-19 7:26:29 PM  
Fisty Bum:

3rd and 4th liners make better coaches, they've seen how it's done.
 
2022-01-19 8:54:15 PM  
On the other hand, at one time the top 3 men in the world each had a former number 1 player in the world as their coach.  Djokovic had Boris Becker, Federer had Stefan Edberg, and Murray had Ivan Lendl.
 
2022-01-20 1:41:45 AM  
Scotty Bowman never played in the NHL. Joe McCarthy never played in MLB. Bill Belichick never played in the NFL. Phil Jackson was an NBA benchwarmer. The best coaches are rarely the best players.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking




On Twitter


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.