You didn't read the article apparently because this is exactly what it says.
Tennis is supposed to be the loneliest sport. A key aspect of the game is the lack of communication throughout the game. You're a gladiator in the arena, and you fight the battle alone. Coaching destroys this psychological aspect of the game.
I read the first half where it was taking about the juniors and qualifying. The article is somewhat puzzling, i’m still confused about what they’re doing in NY. I wonder what the specific rules are. Once per set?
It's more or less the same thing and it's called coaching.
I didn't even begin reading it hehehehehe
I don't agree, but this is well put. I'm fine with change too.... after the big3 retire that is.I'm absolutely fine with it, at any level, for men too. Why not hear Ljubicic or Moya telling Rafa or Fed what they could change? Why fine for other sports but not for tennis? What if it might produce even better results sometimes?
To me it's like saying wearing anything else but white is a bad idea, or always insisting on white balls. No blue clay. I like change.
Do you undestand Spanish or Serbian ?I'm absolutely fine with it, at any level, for men too. Why not hear Ljubicic or Moya telling Rafa or Fed what they could change? Why fine for other sports but not for tennis? What if it might produce even better results sometimes?
To me it's like saying wearing anything else but white is a bad idea, or always insisting on white balls. No blue clay. I like change.
I don't know what your problem is.
Most of the time I can't understand English at the volume they usually record things.
It's not a big deal.
Not gonna waste time with a nitpicker. On ignore.
Worst logic ever to justify something. Whataboutism.
"Change for change sake" or using this as a counter-argument to not changing is even worse logic than the above.To me it's like saying wearing anything else but white is a bad idea, or always insisting on white balls. No blue clay. I like change.
If I have earned a worst logic award from you I'd say that you are letting a lot of bad logic slide by from other people. But so far all I can see is that you don't like my opinion because it differs from yours.
Hmm. Did I say that? If I say that an idea seems interesting, and that I might like it, how is that the same as automatically endorsing any change to anything for any reason?
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:Congratulations, you earned a bad argument/logic uppercut twice in one post.
I would rather the player figures it out on his own on the court. Aren't individual sports special because of this? I mean it's upto the individual to figure out alternate game plans, face adversity on the court by themselves etc. Tennis will lose its charm if coaching is allowed imo. I do not know of other individual sports that has coaching on the field/court (boxing?)I'm absolutely fine with it, at any level, for men too. Why not hear Ljubicic or Moya telling Rafa or Fed what they could change? Why fine for other sports but not for tennis? What if it might produce even better results sometimes?
To me it's like saying wearing anything else but white is a bad idea, or always insisting on white balls. No blue clay. I like change.
I really don't have a strong opinion about this. Try it, throw it out if it doesn't work. Or don't allow it in the first place. It's not a big deal to me. As I said, I think it would be fun to see what happens. I personally think illegal coaching from the stands is worse somehow because it's sneaky.
Depends where the coach is
Same here.
You got it. It's a virtual hug but it does mean something
Question, and this could be for all against coaching:You got it. It's a virtual hug but it does mean something
