The USO to introduce on-court coaching in the main draw

Do you approve on-court coaching ?

  • Yes

    Votes: 8 11.9%
  • No

    Votes: 59 88.1%

  • Total voters
    67

Luka888

Hall of Fame
#51
Question, and this could be for all against coaching:

Do you feel really strong about it? Would the way it is done make a difference?

I'm thinking of at least two very different scenarios, but of course there could be a lot more.

1. A coach is front and center, ready to "help" at any moment. That seems more like what you would expect with very young, inexperienced players.
2. You have short windows for coaching, maybe at the end of a set. You might in that case see the same thing going on that already happens in the lock room.

As I've said, I don't have any kind of strong view about this. I was 100% behind a shot clock but feared it might be done ineffectively, which is what has happened. I like TBs in the last set of a major to prevent a match going on forever as has happened and leaving the eventual winner so depleted that he has nothing left for the next match.
Gary, I'm an old fashion guy. I was against TBs too. I want tennis to stay traditional if you wish. It has always been one 'worrier' against another. That is what I love about tennis. Yes, I'm against the shot clock too. It doesn't really work. So, what's the point?

A player A is ready to serve and someone who is drunk from the crowd yells something stupid. It happens all the time. So, the umpire has to start the shot clock again.

I mean, you coach players before a match. You can coach them after the match but not during the match. It's silly. It is one on one and that is so beautiful about tennis. Some people will disagree with me, but it doesn't matter.

What is next. BO3 at majors? I don't think so.
 
#52
Wow what a kick in the gut for Carlos Ramos. You dare calling out our diva, I’ll change the rule to make you look like an idiot! (n)
 
#53
Gary, I'm an old fashion guy. I was against TBs too. I want tennis to stay traditional if you wish. It has always been one 'worrier' against another. That is what I love about tennis. Yes, I'm against the shot clock too. It doesn't really work. So, what's the point?

A player A is ready to serve and someone who is drunk from the crowd yells something stupid. It happens all the time. So, the umpire has to start the shot clock again.

I mean, you coach players before a match. You can coach them after the match but not during the match. It's silly. It is one on one and that is so beautiful about tennis. Some people will disagree with me, but it doesn't matter.

What is next. BO3 at majors? I don't think so.
OK, but are you enough of a traditionalist to object to poly?

For me, personally, poly has ruined the game I used to like. That's where I get conservative, but the genie is out of the box and it can't be turned back. I believe that poly is the main cause of the disappearance of SnV tennis.
 
#54
Common sense says that coaching goes on during breaks. I don't know how, but when a player goes off court and might be consulting about an injury or some other physical problem, do you think they don't talk a bit about a possible change in strategy? Surely this goes on in spades when there is a halt in play for the day. So I don't see it as a black and white thing.
Coaches are not allowed anywhere near the player during a medical timeout or even when the player leaves the court to change their clothes or go to the bathroom. ATP on court officials escort the player and make sure they don't talk to anyone but medical staff. It's different for a rain delay when the umpire has officially suspended play. The players go to the locker room and the coaches can go too and talk to the players.
 
#55
Coaches are not allowed anywhere near the player during a medical timeout or even when the player leaves the court to change their clothes or go to the bathroom. ATP on court officials escort the player and make sure they don't talk to anyone but medical staff. It's different for a rain delay when the umpire has officially suspended play. The players go to the locker room and the coaches can go too and talk to the players.
Interesting. I really did not know, never thought too much about it.
 

Luka888

Hall of Fame
#56
OK, but are you enough of a traditionalist to object to poly?

For me, personally, poly has ruined the game I used to like. That's where I get conservative, but the genie is out of the box and it can't be turned back. I believe that poly is the main cause of the disappearance of SnV tennis.
I'd make them play with wooden racquets :D.

However, everyone has the same opportunity nowadays. Nothing you can do about it. I need to go and polish my old shoes. Purchased in London, UK 10 years ago. They still look great. Hand made :).
 
#57
I'd make them play with wooden racquets :D.

However, everyone has the same opportunity nowadays. Nothing you can do about it. I need to go and polish my old shoes. Purchased in London, UK 10 years ago. They still look great. Hand made :).
Maybe you're joking, but I stopped playing right before wood was outdated. I have two bad shoulders, but I'll bet I could still play a little with the old wooden rackets. But if you gave me one of the modern rackets with poly, I'll bet everything would either be into the net of 10 feet over the baseline.
 

Luka888

Hall of Fame
#58
Maybe you're joking, but I stopped playing right before wood was outdated. I have two bad shoulders, but I'll bet I could still play a little with the old wooden rackets. But if you gave me one of the modern rackets with poly, I'll bet everything would either be into the net of 10 feet over the baseline.
Could we play with underarm serve? I'd go for it. No poly for us. I'm just not sure if we should do it in Canada or the States. Hey, we might be able to make some money with TTW support ;).
 
#59
Regardless of the article.

I think On-Court Coaching should be permitted during Matches ... but ONLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLAYER !

It should work like the existing "Challenge System". Player gets a limited number of requests - perhaps 1 per Set. Use it or lose it.

Player has the prerogative to call for their Coach like they call for the Physiotherapist or a Medical Time Out. (EG. Coach has 60 seconds, and it can only be used during normal Game or Set Changeovers.)

No coaching is permitted without the player requesting it first so it can be used as a tactic by the Player as required.
 
#60
I honestly don't see this helping the big 3, but it would help the mentally fragile NextGen players. They are often down when they lose some big points in long rallies. Maybe this is one of the ways they are trying to help the younger players stay competitive with the older champs.
 

Tennis_Hands

Talk Tennis Guru
#61
I honestly don't see this helping the big 3, but it would help the mentally fragile NextGen players. They are often down when they lose some big points in long rallies. Maybe this is one of the ways they are trying to help the younger players stay competitive with the older champs.
It doesn't help the WTA one bit, so that would be a negative. Besides, the players will never get mentally tough, if they always rely on a coach to guide them and take the pressure off of them.

I agree with those saying that tennis requires independent thinking out there (unless you are Nadal when it is either "hit to the BH" or Tio coaches anyway).

Basically they are doing this to change tennis from sport to entertainment similar to the American sports. I will not be surprised if the players that are sponsored by certain brands start calling trainers so that the brand can air its commercial, or an agreement between ATP and the main sponsors of the tournament is reached about the number of breaks in accordance with the advertising needs. It can even be part of the rules.

:cool:
 
#62
I think you're just in a bad mood and happened to run into my post at the exact moment you wanted to argue with someone. Basically your logic is:

I don't agree with someone on the Internet, so I'll go on the attack with the "not logical" accusation because I just read an opinion by someone that doesn't match mine.
Crap logic is this: "...but other sports allow it..."

And: "..I like change. "

They're not arguments which hold merit insofar as articulating a good reason why/why not. The second is a non-argument unless you consider "I like cheese" to be an argument for how healthy cheese is to a person's diet, as opposed to just stating a preference for a food not related to a discussion about health.

Liking something isn't an argument unless that is the argument. :p
 
#63
Crap logic is this: "...but other sports allow it..."

And: "..I like change. "

They're not arguments which hold merit insofar as articulating a good reason why/why not. The second is a non-argument unless you consider "I like cheese" to be an argument for how healthy cheese is to a person's diet, as opposed to just stating a preference for a food not related to a discussion about health.

Liking something isn't an argument unless that is the argument. :p

:p
 
#64
Crap logic is this: "...but other sports allow it..."

And: "..I like change. "

They're not arguments which hold merit insofar as articulating a good reason why/why not. The second is a non-argument unless you consider "I like cheese" to be an argument for how healthy cheese is to a person's diet, as opposed to just stating a preference for a food not related to a discussion about health.

Liking something isn't an argument unless that is the argument. :p
I wasn't arguing for anything. I was not making an important statement, nor was I expressing a strong like/dislike.

I'd wager you've thought a lot more deeply about this than I have, so I'll leave it at that.
 
#66
My support for the idea of coaching was and remains about as important and serious as my preference for chocolate over vanilla. ;)

I do have some really strong beliefs, but they are not about tennis!
Yeah, it just does not move the needle for me much. I am not sure many would even utilize it, but if they did, it might just mess with their heads more than help.
 

ABCD

Hall of Fame
#67
I support on-court coaching. It would provide insight into mental process of coaches and players and their relationship. It would be entertaining to hear advice and response. In basketball matches that is my favorite part. I would also introduce right to call 1-2 time-outs during a match at any time. Imagine Federer-Djokovic USO 2011 SF 30:40, Djokovic celebrates "the shot" and time-out is called, coach tells Federer "don't worry, nothing changed, no problems, you have one more, calm down, take your time", momentum broken, tennis history changed.
 
#68
I support on-court coaching. It would provide insight into mental process of coaches and players and their relationship. It would be entertaining to hear advice and response. In basketball matches that is my favorite part. I would also introduce right to call 1-2 time-outs during a match at any time. Imagine Federer-Djokovic USO 2011 SF 30:40, Djokovic celebrates "the shot" and time-out is called, coach tells Federer "don't worry, nothing changed, no problems, you have one more, calm down, take your time", momentum broken, tennis history changed.
Haha, I hope you are kidding. It would turn into American football where they freeze the kicker with their timeouts. Big break point... TO!
 

Ann

Hall of Fame
#72
On-court coaching has not worked with the WTA, it's actually an obnoxious hindrance. I don't watch enough WTA to be able to state it never helped, I can only state that I've never seen it help. In truth, I've only seen it hurt.
 
#75
Regardless of the article.

I think On-Court Coaching should be permitted during Matches ... but ONLY AT THE REQUEST OF THE PLAYER !

It should work like the existing "Challenge System". Player gets a limited number of requests - perhaps 1 per Set. Use it or lose it.

Player has the prerogative to call for their Coach like they call for the Physiotherapist or a Medical Time Out. (EG. Coach has 60 seconds, and it can only be used during normal Game or Set Changeovers.)

No coaching is permitted without the player requesting it first so it can be used as a tactic by the Player as required.
Yeah, something like this or a WTA-style meeting between sets I’d actually be somewhat okay with. But unlimited coaching from the stands between any point at any time? Yuck.
 
#79
I don't even understand the benefit of this change.

There's been a bunch of changes in modern times that I at least see why they did it (Hawkeye, serve clock, tiebreaks, etc.) But I don't see how on-court coaching improves the sport. All it does is devalue what the players go through out there by giving them a crutch.
in boxing it's common practice since ever, and both sports can be a little monotonous sometimes.
coaching allows for bigger strategical changes during matches. that sounds great to me.

the dialogues between coach and player would also make for more entertainment for the casual spectators. i think i'll find it pretty funny myself.
 
#81
coaching allows for bigger strategical changes during matches. that sounds great to me.
IMO, most tennis players at the elite level are too set in their playing ways to make any radical strategic changes during any given match.

Federer has often said he thinks it is much tougher to play a player the first time because he is not familiar with their playing style or patterns of play. And he realises that most people are very familiar with his.

Why do you think guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, invite young promising players to join them for a week of hitting practice and training? You don't really believe they do it out of the goodness of their own hearts? LOL.

Federer also says that when he plays his main opponents, they all know each other's games intimately and the final result usually hinges on the playing conditions, how the players are actually feeling on that day, and a few key points played within the match.

These guys have grooved their games over many years of hitting, they know their strengths and weaknesses, they know their opponents' strengths and weaknesses. They simply can't turn on a dime during any given match.

At that level, any coach is simply going to re-inforce what the player already knows. They usually do this more with Encouragement and support rather than any strategic or tactical in-situ match advice.

The idea that a Coach can tell a 20 Time Majors Title winner something new to help them win a match is sort of comical.
 
#82
IMO, most tennis players at the elite level are too set in their playing ways to make any radical strategic changes during any given match.

Federer has often said he thinks it is much tougher to play a player the first time because he is not familiar with their playing style or patterns of play. And he realises that most people are very familiar with his.

Why do you think guys like Federer, Nadal and Djokovic, invite young promising players to join them for a week of hitting practice and training? You don't really believe they do it out of the goodness of their own hearts? LOL.

Federer also says that when he plays his main opponents, they all know each other's games intimately and the final result usually hinges on the playing conditions, how the players are actually feeling on that day, and a few key points played within the match.

These guys have grooved their games over many years of hitting, they know their strengths and weaknesses, they know their opponents' strengths and weaknesses. They simply can't turn on a dime during any given match.

At that level, any coach is simply going to re-inforce what the player already knows. They usually do this more with Encouragement and support rather than any strategic or tactical in-situ match advice.

The idea that a Coach can tell a 20 Time Majors Title winner something new to help them win a match is sort of comical.
erm, the coaching rule would not only be for the big 3, but even for them and even for matches between them it's not true what you say.
while they know eachother very well, they still constantly try to mix up patterns of their games to keep the other one guessing.
from a second opinion and a view from outside, by a coach, they would surely benefit.
 
#83
erm, the coaching rule would not only be for the big 3, but even for them and even for matches between them it's not true what you say.
while they know eachother very well, they still constantly try to mix up patterns of their games to keep the other one guessing.
from a second opinion and a view from outside, by a coach, they would surely benefit.
The Big 3 aren't the Big 3 because of any match coaching they receive. Their coaching influences have been mostly holistic rather than tactical or strategic. (Or so they say).

I've analysed hundreds of matches very closely and imo the Big 3 (and also include Andy) don't mix anything up. They are always trying to match their strengths to their opponents weaknesses.

At the pace the modern game is played at, there is little time to mix things up. Much of the point play is played on instinct and auto-pilot.

IMO, at Top 100 level, much more benefit comes from encouragement rather than from in match coaching. That can come from the Stands. It's not necessary for a coach to come on court and provide it. (Of course, there will be exceptions but those particular players would have to be highly coachable and very adaptable.)
 
#84
The Big 3 aren't the Big 3 because of any match coaching they receive. Their coaching influences have been mostly holistic rather than tactical or strategic. (Or so they say).

I've analysed hundreds of matches very closely and imo the Big 3 (and also include Andy) don't mix anything up. They are always trying to match their strengths to their opponents weaknesses.

At the pace the modern game is played at, there is little time to mix things up. Much of the point play is played on instinct and auto-pilot.

IMO, at Top 100 level, much more benefit comes from encouragement rather than from in match coaching. That can come from the Stands. It's not necessary for a coach to come on court and provide it. (Of course, there will be exceptions but those particular players would have to be highly coachable and very adaptable.)
the quantity of your analysis sounds impressive, the quality not so much.
of course do they change strategies and tactics even during their matches,
but the big 3 are also the worst example as they are indeed so experienced and need oncourt coaching least of them all.

the notion that the effect of oncourt coaching would be negligible is ridiculous.
the opposite view/fear that "players wouldn't win on their own" then anymore (that others here hold) i don't share either.
 
#86
but the big 3 are also the worst example as they are indeed so experienced and need oncourt coaching least of them all.
The BIg 3's results are unsurpassed in the history of the game. They have not needed On Court coaching to achieve their status as three of the GOATs.

You have not suggested anything to indicate that On Court Coaching would be of direct and immediate benefit to the players.

the notion that the effect of oncourt coaching would be negligible is ridiculous.
Proof Please?

On Court coaching has been used in the WTA for some time now. It has been used in Davis Cup for decades. There is nothing to suggest that On Court Coaching makes any real positive difference to the outcome of a match in general.

To suggest that it will change the Men's Game now is lunacy at best and total misunderstanding of how the sport is played at worst.

Change sometimes isn't needed, why try to fix something when it ain't broke? I'm for change when it's needed not when it's not.
I agree. Change for changes sake is stupid. Change for the sake of pleasing spectators or fans is stupid as well.

Change for the sake of making the sport better is something to be considered. IMO On Court coaching will not make the sport better, and could actually make it worse.
 
#87
The BIg 3's results are unsurpassed in the history of the game. They have not needed On Court coaching to achieve their status as three of the GOATs.
really no idea why you repeat that. what has it to do with the topic?

Karma Tennis said:
On Court coaching has been used in the WTA for some time now. It has been used in Davis Cup for decades. There is nothing to suggest that On Court Coaching makes any real positive difference to the outcome of a match in general.
well, you don't even notice the changes of game plans in the big 3 matches.


i don't think that oncourt coaching will lead to huge changes, but they won't be negligible either.

Karma Tennis said:
Change for the sake of pleasing spectators or fans is stupid as well.
sais who?
 
#89
really no idea why you repeat that. what has it to do with the topic?
The main point of on court coaching is to improve the player's chance of winning the match. At the elite Professional level, the differences between failure and success are very small. On court coaching will not change that.

You are inferring that any player with an On Court Coach will have a significantly greater chance of beating players like the Big 3. I say it wouldn't make any difference.

That is what it has to do with the Topic.

I challenged you to provide evidence that it makes a difference. I'm still waiting.

well, you don't even notice the changes of game plans in the big 3 matches.
Well, you don't listen to the Player interviews. I pay much more attention to those because the Player's game plans don't really change at the elite level.

That's why Roger has 8 Wimbledons and 1 Roland Garros and Rafa has 12 Roland Garros and 2 Wimbledons ... Or did you miss that?

Me! :)

The players MUST be the first port of call for any such decision. If they all agree, then fine. But I don't think you would get anywhere near a majority let alone all agreeing to this if you consulted the Top 1000 ATP Players in the world.
 
#90
You are inferring that any player with an On Court Coach will have a significantly greater chance of beating players like the Big 3.
what? where?

Karma Tennis said:
The main point of on court coaching is to improve the player's chance of winning the match.
really? i thought that both players would be allowed to use it. :unsure:

Karma Tennis said:
Well, you don't listen to the Player interviews.
i don't believe everything, especially not when they say that oncourt coaching has no effect, but they still want to have it.
 
#91
really? i thought that both players would be allowed to use it. :unsure:
Being allowed to use it doesn't actually mean they can. There is the issue of $$$.
Unless you propose that the ATP funds On Court Coaches for ALL players that play on the ATP Tour.

i don't believe everything, especially not when they say that oncourt coaching has no effect, but they still want to have it.
Which ATP Tour players say they want to have it?
 
Top