An article I noticed on BBC sport this morning, Andy Murray (current world number 3) just split from head coach Amelie Mauresmo after 2 years. If you’re not familiar with the story Amelie Mauresmo is a former player who won 2 grand slams in her career.
I remember him hiring her a couple of years ago. Part of me applauded it as a bold decision, regardless of whether I agreed, it took b~~~~ to hire her. She was the first female coach of a male player (at high level tennis I assume) so this appears to be progressive. That’s only applicable if she was the best candidate for the role, however I fail to see how he expected her to be the best coaching option for him.
My goal for this post isn’t to advocate misogyny by implying women are unfit to be coaches, but it strikes me as a classic example of where feminism has demanded equality without merit. If a woman is the best candidate for the role then fair enough, but I just don’t see how Amelie would be.
If you’re not interested in tennis let me explain that Andy Murray has a pretty aggressive demeanour. He’s cold, unfriendly and fiercely competitive in everything, not just tennis. These are all unsurprising characteristics for a professional athlete at the top level but I bring this up because I fail to see how someone with Andy’s personality would benefit from having Amelie as a coach. Generally top athletes seem to benefit from someone with a bigger personality to inspire them and often to put them in their place if needs be. Djokovic (current #1) recently hired Boris Becker (former #1, considered one of the best players of all time) as his coach and since then he has been dominating the sport.
In terms of actual tennis coaching (i.e. technique, training exercises, fitness etc) I have no grounds to dispute her abilities, but in terms of motivation I fail to see in what regards she would be the best option.
Under Andy’s previous coach Ivan Lendl (former world #1) Andy won 2 grand slams. He has had some success under Amelie by winning a couple of Masters events, but no one would say he has progressed his game or been a better competitor. He’s actually gone down the rankings. At the end of Lendl’s tenure Murray had reached number 2 in the world and had the opportunity to kick on and win more, but he hasn’t progressed.
Now again, I’m not here to start saying women shouldn’t be coaches blah blah etc. But I want to highlight this as a blatant case of feminism having an inappropriate influence on society. Without feminist influence, I can imagine no Universe in which Andy Murray would pick Amelie Mauresmo ahead of all the other potential coaches out there. Under Lendl, Murray was often angry, frustrated etc, but it was Lendl’s ability to motivate Andy that made the difference. Under Lendl Murray won 2 grand slams, including the most prestigious tournament, Wimbledon. I wonder what the difference would have been if Murray had hired Becker instead of Amelie?
Perhaps the world needs to go through this period of trial and error before everyone is convinced at how poor the logic behind it is. Equal rights does not mean equal ability. Women should not be over-estimated in their abilities simply because of supposed gender inequalities. If you want a woman to be your coach then fair enough, but don’t let society pressure you into being “progressive”. Even the majority of top female players have male coaches.
I discussed this with 2 female colleagues at work and was branded misogynistic for criticising Amelie’s abilities. God forbid I think men are generally better than women at something. So I asked rationally what they believe she brought to the table that a top male coach couldn’t and all they could say was she “deserved it more.” Haha, wow! Welcome to the progressive new world everyone, where entitlement comes before ability.
Miles ahead 3 years, 8 months ago.
