US TENNIS
September, 1997
Paul Annacone: A Accidental Coach
Interview: Peter Bodo

In his salad days as a player, Paul Annacone played a compact, minimalist version of the serve-and-volley game, fearlessly charging the net on every occasion to employ his formidable volley off either wing. This hyper-aggressive, risky game was an expression of Annacone's personality only in that it revealed his realistic understanding of his own strengths and weaknesses as a player.

In all other respects, Annacone was an amiable, thoughtful and popular individual -- a student of the game and a fixture in the tennis community. Annacone's singles career waned in 1993, but he continued to play doubles and was involved in the ATP Tour establishment. Then two events altered Annacone's career path: A herniated disc in his back curtailed his career as a touring pro, and soon there after, his friend Tim Gullikson, the coach of Pete Sampras, was stricken by brain tumors.

When Gullikson's condition became serious in March 1995, Sampras asked Annacone to take over as his interim coach. Unfortunately, Gullikson never recovered, and Annacone has been working with Sampras ever since. TENNIS caught up with Annacone at Wimbledon and asked him to take stock of his life and times with Sampras.


TENNIS: You were kind of an accidental coach. Are you surprised that your relationship with Pete has gone on so long or so productively?

Annacone: It was a natural fit, because I was friends with Tim for a long time, and I'd been around Pete since he was about 16. The whole goal was for me to just be around until Tim got better. The basic idea was for me to help make the best out of a bad situation.

It was good, because we didn't really have to worry about bruised egos. It wasn't like, if Tim got better, I would be think ing, "Oh no, I've lost my job." The whole point was for Tim to get better.

Unfortunately, things didn't work out as planned. But if you were going to coach a great player, there couldn't be a better one than Pete, because of his great character. He's very loyal, and with him if you just do what you're supposed to, it all works out.

TENNIS: What was initially tougher-dealing with the emotional issues raised by Tim's condition, or getting up to speed on Pete's game and his individual needs?

Annacone: I guess they went hand in hand. But the thing that most strikes me about the situation was Pete's resilience. This also gets into the issue of why he's such a great unique player.

That first spring [in 1995] when I was traveling with Pete, he lost in the first round in Rome and generally struggled on clay. He did 0.K. in Hamburg, but he also lost first round in the French Open. He was clearly struggling with his tennis. On the plane home from France, I was thinking of what I could do to get him back on track; I was feeling some self-imposed pressure.

Then we go to England a week or so later and all of a sudden he's hitting the ball 0.K., and then he goes on a run and wins singles and doubles at Queen's, and then he wins Wimbledon.

I was just amazed at the similarity of his reactions and attitude to adversity and success. He never felt any panic over having some troubles, and when he wins he doesn't act like he just invented sliced bread. And that's the real key to Pete. There's no panic in Pete, and there's no arrogance in Pete. I think that's what makes him a true champion -- his perspective.

TENNIS: How did you deal with the emotional impact of Tim's condition?

Annacone: We talked about it, but we didn't get obsessed about it. I was able to help partly because I lost a very close friend when I was 19. He died of leukemia. So I had been through the tragedy of horrific illness and early death. Pete was also young, and he had never lost someone to whom he was close. They really did have a special bond.

I was never meant to replace that relationship, even if I could. And nobody ever will. But it all came down to making the best of a bad situation, and dealing with something terrible in a positive way. It's a bit of a cliche, I know, but the best thing Pete could do for Tim was play well.

In the early stages of his illness, Tim was watching matches on TV, and he was on the phone with pete quite often. So it served no purpose for Pete to wallow in sorrow. In the end, Pete's doing well had great therapeutic value for Tim, and for Pete, and for me, too.

TENNIS: Do you remember the first time you saw Pete?

Annacone: Yeah. I hit with him in Palm Springs when I was still playing and he was like 16. I came off the court that night and said to my brother, who was my coach, "This kid is going to be some great player."

Then, a year or two later, Pete spent some time with me and my family here in London during Wimbledon. At the time, Michael Chang and Andre Agassi were getting a lot of publicity, and Pete was ranked around No. 70 in the world. I tried to impress on him that he shouldn't get discouraged or second-guess himself about his rate of progress, because their scope was a lot smaller.

Michael always knew that his ability as a counterpuncher, his wheels, and his baseline steadiness were going to be his meal ticket. Andre was a great returner with great ground strokes. But Pete had so many weapons in his arsenal that the hard part would be the emotional education of how and when to use all those weapons.

I suggested that going through that process was part of what made tennis fun and intriguing. Honestly, I'm not even sure that Pete remembers that conversation. But it wasn't long after it that things really came together for Pete, for reasons that had nothing to do with me. I'm still amazed at how quickly he learned to use all of his tools.

TENNIS: Great champions all have big egos. When and how does that manifest itself in Pete?

Annacone: Pete is one of the fiercest competitors I've ever known. I know that it's hard for most people to understand how Pete can be so competitive in such a controlled way. In that sense, Pete is a lot more like Bjorn Borg than any of the other great players.

Just the other day, in the locker room at Wimbledon, John McEnroe was talking with Pete, telling him that he should show more fire on the court. And Pete just said, "Look, I am what I am. I don't have the volatility that you or Jimmy [Connors] had. Hopefully, people will understand that I can only be me. I have my own way of competing and focusing, and I hope that, combined with my talent, is enough to be entertaining."

The ego issue is interesting because Pete has this extraordinary way of being totally noncompetitive about things he has no control over. He's happy that Boris [Becker] has 9 million media things going on, and that Andre has this huge publicity thing, and that Tim [Henman] and Greg [Rusedski] get unbelievable attention in London.

He doesn't begrudge them a thing. His attitude is, "I'll try as hard as I can, do my job and let the chips fall where they may."

TENNIS: How was the learning curve for you when you took the job as Peters coach?

Annacone: When you're dealing with someone at the level of Pete, it's more of an education about what to do when you don't achieve your goals, not in setting and achieving them.

Tennis-wise, I was close enough to the top at one point to have a sniff of it. That's been important to me, even though I agree in many ways with people who say you can be a successful coach without ever having played top-level tennis.

I've found that there are just certain times when you're sitting in the stands and a shot is missed or a serve goes off and you can only have a real feeling of what's going on out there if you've been there yourself. It's been vitally important to me in terms of understanding and dealing with particular setbacks.

TENNIS: In the beginning, did Pete sit down and explain what he wanted from you, or did you both more or less feel your way around?

Annacone: Because of the situation, we didn't have to start at square one. I felt that communication was very important, especially at the beginning. You have to put egos and feelings aside and talk with each other. The player, unless he's really green, has to say, "Look, here's what I need, more feedback about this, less about that. More focus on this, less on that."

So we had a few conversations about that. The thing with Pete is that he hates being catered to. He doesn't like to have a big deal made about him. And he doesn't like to be surrounded by people who require a lot of maintenance, or who get all stressed out or hyper.

At first that was hard, because I wanted to trust me, and I always wanted to assure him that everything was being taken care of. But I learned that he's more like, "Just do it, you don't have to tell me about it. I trust you -- otherwise, we wouldn't be here in the first place."

Pete doesn't like to talk about tennis 24 hours a day. We talk about his matches five or 10 minutes the night before. It's like: This is what the other guy does, the ABCs, and these are his tendencies. Then a few minutes before he walks on court, we talk about a few specific things.

TENNIS: What does Pete like or dislike in a coach?

Annacone: He likes clean, succinct explanations, and he likes to have a basic, simple game plan. We don't sit there for like 20 minutes and talk about 50 things going all around the globe.

Usually, we'll start with him telling me about his past experience with an upcoming opponent. Then I go over some of my notes, records and observations about the guy --what works for him, what breaks down, what his comfort zone and his patterns are.

But I touched on this before: Pete has so many skills that if he takes care of his own game, uses all his tools and avoids patterned play, he'll be successful.

TENNIS: Were you at all tempted to remake Pete according to the way you played the game?

Annacone: A lot of people assume a coach would try to do that, but a couple of different things go into it if you're at all cut out to be coach. You know, I learned early on that no matter what I wanted to do, I would never be a baseliner. I could never be successful that way. Now, Pete -- he's got a lot of options.

Initially, one of my big themes with Pete was that he wasn't using his athleticism enough. He's a terrific athlete, which even some savvy people don't understand, because he's such a great, pure tennis player, too.

So I felt that Pete needed to come forward and impose his will on people by being at net, and he had the athletic ability and racquet skills to do that. Sure, he's fine when he stays back. But when you're the No. l player in the world, there's a psychological benefit to forcing the action.

If I chipped a return and came in, it wouldn't mean anything to, say, Chang. But if Pete does it, that's a whole different story. So he has the athletic ability to play aggressively, and the aura to intimidate every other player on the tour by doing it.

TENNIS: When Pete plays badly, is there a specific reason? Is it a mental or a physical thing?

Annacone: Occasionally, people will make a big deal out of Pete being flat, or whatever. But he understands that when you're on the road 35 weeks a year, you just can't play great all the time. The bad signs for Pete are when he falls into a pattern, or when he doesn't try to do things differently when he has opportunities to change.

TENNIS: Do you ever get jealous of Pete's natural ability, or wish you had known in your own career what you know now about success and winning?

Annacone: I've come to truly admire the way Pete is so completely unaffected by what other people think or say about him. When I played, I put a little too much stock in what Arthur Ashe or Stan Smith or someone else said about my game. When you listen to that kind of stuff, it can really undermine you and make you much less effective.

As far as jealousy goes, sometimes I see Pete do something and I think, "Gee, I would have killed to be able to do that...." I've sometimes wanted to ask him if he ever thinks it's all too easy.

And I used to wonder if a guy like Pete can appreciate what he is doing, understand how gifted he is and how he makes such tough things look easy. I think that, deep down, Pete is aware of all of those things. But at the risk of seeming vain or conceited, he doesn't want anyone to know that he knows.

Also, I think he takes his talent as a given, figures he's lucky to have it and believes that it doesn't give him license to do whatever he wants, to act like a jerk, or to have people falling at his feet. He really believes that he just has to go out and do his job and see what happens.

TENNIS: Did you feel that Pete and Andre had an authentic rivalry going, or was it wishful thinking?

Annacone: It was a legitimate rivalry, because I believe that Andre has to be one of the top two or three ball strikers of all time. He returned better than even Connors did, and Pete had this great serve. It was a good fit.

It just doesn't seem like Andre enjoys competing week-in, week-out the way that Pete does. You can't always see it in his eyes, or maybe even in his legs. But Pete loves to play this game, and he loves to play it often. Andre seems to like to beat the pants off people for a little while and then go do his other things.

But that summer [of 1995] I think Pete showed his true colors. He played a lot of matches. He won some and he lost some. He came out on top.

TENNIS: There was quite a big deal made last year about Pete's need to achieve closure to the tragedy that befell Tim, and he didn't seem to really do that until near the end of the year, when he won the U.S. Open. Was that interpretation of the situation accurate?

Annacone: It's funny, we talked about that whole thing on a plane trip to Europe after the U.S. Open. The answer is yes and no. To some degree, that was all about how the media can seize on an idea and it takes on a life of its own.

For the record, Pete really felt that he was playing for Tim at the French Open. He did everything he could to win that with the constant thoughts of Tim in his mind. But he fell a little short. After that, it was done. Although he thought about Tim a lot, and probably will for the rest of his life, he didn't carry around that same weight the rest of the summer.

Then at the U.S. Open, people started talking about it again. Then there was the match in which he got sick. A fire got lit again. Sure it influenced him, sure he had to think about the whole situation again. And in the end it was great to win a Grand Slam event for the first time without Tim there.

There was a lot of logic to it, and it was great theater. But the initial, must-do feeling was there inside Pete in an authentic way only at the French Open.

TENNIS: You're both a coach and a parent. What do you say when a parent comes to you and says, "I want to pattern my kid after Pete"?

Annacone: Look, there's just one Pete Sampras. Just like there was only one Stefan Edberg or John McEnroe. In Pete's case, yes, he wanted to be like the gentleman pros -- like the Rod Lavers of this world. But he also knew that he wasn't going to be Laver, and he didn't even want to be Laver. He had to find his own way.

So I would impress on a parent that it is very, very difficult to achieve such lofty goals, and that they too would have to find their own way of doing it. The other thing is that you have to learn to roll with the punches. I don't believe in taking a kid and saying, from day one, "You're going to swing a golf club and become great." That obviously worked for Tiger Woods, but that's really an exception.

TENNIS: Can you see yourself doing this for the next three or five or seven years?

Annacone: I honestly hope I can. The other day, someone asked me where I could go from here, what could I do when I'm no longer Pete's coach. I was like, "Well...." Well, where do you go from here?

It's going to be a very tough act to follow -- and not just because of his record. If anything, it will be more because of his personality. With Pete, it's never about dealing with a six-car entourage, or having to close down a restaurant so that he and his buddies can hang out.

There is no pampering in the job description, and no hand-holding. Pete doesn't want that. If he had a motto, it would be: "Don't make a bigger deal than necessary out of anything...." What more could a coach ask?