Gilbert steps up call for coaching on court [Archive] - MensTennisForums.com

Gilbert steps up call for coaching on court

nobama
02-14-2007, 07:50 PM
http://sport.guardian.co.uk/breakingnews/feedstory/0,,-6415743,00.html

Gilbert steps up call for coaching on court
By Simon Cambers
SAN JOSE, California, Feb 14 (Reuters) - Brad Gilbert, one of the world's foremost coaches, has reiterated his desire for on-court coaching in the men's game.

The women's game is testing a system which allows a player to consult her coach at the end of each set.

"I think we can do it too," Gilbert told reporters after watching his British pupil Andy Murray beat American Kevin Kim in the San Jose Open first round. "We tried it twice in 1998...but that was it.

"Why not give it a try? From a television point of view, there are five minutes of air time that could be spent discussing what they might be saying."

With the exception of the Davis Cup, where the team coach sits courtside throughout, men's tennis is one of the few sports where the player is alone.

"That's the greatest injustice on the tour but we've always had this rule," said Gilbert last month. "The purists will say it's always been this way but then why do they have it in Davis Cup?

"HawkEye (the electronic line-calling system) has been the best change to the game since I've been a pro and I'd like to see coaching come next," added the American, who helped Andre Agassi and Andy Roddick reach the top of the world rankings.

The biggest obstacle could be opposition from the players with several big names against the idea.

"It's a joke," said world number one Roger Federer. "Why change it? We don't need it.

"We're the only sport that doesn't have it and that's good. The fans don't care."

scoobs
02-14-2007, 08:00 PM
Can't see the need for it. The entertainment value for fans of having a coach come on and frequently jabber away in a foreign language, is negligable to say the least.

Plus, from the experience of seeing the trials in the WTA, most of players call their coaches down and then pay little attention to what is said, or it doesn't make any difference to the play anyway.

Waste of time.

Sjengster
02-14-2007, 08:02 PM
The difference is that the DC coach is advising every player on his team over the course of a tie, including doubles specialists for instance - I know he is sometimes the full-time coach of an individual player, e.g. Navratil with Berdych in the recent CZE-USA tie, but they have a broader overall role. Players get nannied enough by their teams in between matches, during them is the time when they are supposed to implement all the advice they've been given on their own.

R.Federer
02-14-2007, 08:03 PM
Doesn't sound like Gilbert has too much confidence in Murray thinking for himself out on court when he continues to push for coaching.

Definitely not in support of this. Not every player even has a coach!

Kalliopeia
02-14-2007, 10:26 PM
God, this is just what tennis needs, more chances to hear Brad Gilbert yakking. :rolleyes:

NicoFan
02-14-2007, 10:36 PM
There's been so many threads on this subject but one more time: I'm for it. One of these days, we'll get fans who want the game to progress, and we'll see changes. Probably not in my lifetime :lol: but hopefully one day.

ASP0315
02-14-2007, 10:39 PM
God, this is just what tennis needs, more chances to hear Brad Gilbert yakking. :rolleyes:

Who cares about Gilbert anymore? :lol:

Sofyaxo
02-14-2007, 10:58 PM
Shut up Brad you do it anyway. :rolleyes:

GlennMirnyi
02-14-2007, 11:02 PM
Maybe we could get a restraining order so Gilbert is obliged to keep a 100m buffer zone of microfones and tennis courts.

megadeth
02-14-2007, 11:20 PM
a feeble attempt to coach murray all the time? :rolleyes:

Or Levy
02-14-2007, 11:28 PM
If I were a player, I'd be embarrassed to get coached on court, considering the world's number one got there with NO coach.

No wonder Fed is against it, it's his edge over everyone else (okay, along with several other things...)

R.Federer
02-14-2007, 11:29 PM
There's been so many threads on this subject but one more time: I'm for it. One of these days, we'll get fans who want the game to progress, and we'll see changes. Probably not in my lifetime :lol: but hopefully one day.

Well, I am all for diversity of opinions. I am opposed to this idea because of several reasons, but primarily because of the disparity it would create for players of different means. I.e., not everyone is supported by a rich tennis federation and not everyone can afford a coach. And some that can afford the services, cannot afford to travel with the coach.

Other reasons include my enjoyment of seeing players figure out their opponents, or fail to, because I think the mental aspect of the game is important. My suspicion is that uber-coaches like Gilbert just want a piece of the limelight that they don't get much of since the player takes the bulk of the credit for a win. I mean, you don't hear Toni Nadal or Roche or Stefanki as proponents of these, and they are also great coaches.

So I am interested in seeing what your arguments are for supporting this, and in particular for viewing this as "progress". It would be a change, sure, but so would be a proposal to play in undies. What about this comes about as progress I do not understand.

ASP0315
02-14-2007, 11:29 PM
a feeble attempt to coach murray all the time? :rolleyes:

:haha:

Macbrother
02-15-2007, 12:06 AM
Why am I not surprised.

mangoes
02-15-2007, 12:16 AM
:rolleyes: Somehow, I'm not shocked to read such nonsense coming from Gilbert. If such a move were to happen, that would be changing one of the fundamental elements of the game of tennis.

Johnny Groove
02-15-2007, 12:18 AM
Oh, Brad, you tool :)

Shabazza
02-15-2007, 12:57 AM
There's been so many threads on this subject but one more time: I'm for it. One of these days, we'll get fans who want the game to progress, and we'll see changes. Probably not in my lifetime :lol: but hopefully one day.

Your opinion on this topic and the RR system is a really strange one for a tennis fan.
I can assure you that no none-tennis fan will suddenly start watching tennis if on-court coaching would be allowed. I'm not so sure the other way round.

arcus
02-15-2007, 01:14 AM
He would say that, wouldn't he?...... :-(

more face time for him on TV

nobama
02-15-2007, 01:21 AM
I can't see it ever happening again on the ATP tour. The women use it but it doesn't seem to make a difference. I think it's stupid. If you're not smart enough to figure out your opponent or makes changes to your game when you're losing you deserve to lose.

Deboogle!.
02-15-2007, 01:28 AM
shut up Brad :rolleyes:

Jlee
02-15-2007, 01:30 AM
This idea is worse than RR, IMO.

Merton
02-15-2007, 02:11 AM
Hopefully Mr. Disney was not paying any attention.

NicoFan
02-15-2007, 03:56 AM
Well, I am all for diversity of opinions. I am opposed to this idea because of several reasons, but primarily because of the disparity it would create for players of different means. I.e., not everyone is supported by a rich tennis federation and not everyone can afford a coach. And some that can afford the services, cannot afford to travel with the coach.

Other reasons include my enjoyment of seeing players figure out their opponents, or fail to, because I think the mental aspect of the game is important. My suspicion is that uber-coaches like Gilbert just want a piece of the limelight that they don't get much of since the player takes the bulk of the credit for a win. I mean, you don't hear Toni Nadal or Roche or Stefanki as proponents of these, and they are also great coaches.

So I am interested in seeing what your arguments are for supporting this, and in particular for viewing this as "progress". It would be a change, sure, but so would be a proposal to play in undies. What about this comes about as progress I do not understand.

I'm all for helping the guys lower down the ladder - that's why I oppose RRs. That's all for the guys at the top, and they are screwing the guys lower down. (And for many other reasons but that's not what this thread is about).

But most guys have coaches today - you have to go wayyyyy way down in the rankings to find a guy who doesn't have a coach. We're talking ATP tournaments here - not challengers.

I like the idea because it will add another element to the game. While it's a lovely thought to say that players have to be able to figure out their opponent while on court and come up with solutions, most don't. So the fans are forced to watch a match with a guy making the same (stupid) decisions over and over again for two hours.

I would rather have my guy huddle with his coach for a few minutes, figure out what's going on, and come up with a plan to either counter what his opponent is doing, or if the problem is with his own game, let his coach tell him what he's doing wrong. Part of any sport is strategy - and a lot of a player's strategy comes from a coach. But it's still up to the player to implement the plan or change - whether it's given before the match or during the match.

Plus it would be fun for the fans. If you've been to a live tournament recently, you'd know how much the fans love the challenge system. Watching a player-coach interaction could be fun...or downright scary knowing some of the players. :lol: I've been to a lot of practices and watching these guys with their coaches can be an interesting experience. And I like the idea of putting a microphone on them for TV coverage. :yeah:

Also btw - I've never heard Tio Toni talk about on court coaching, but Rafa is for it and Toni gets caught coaching now and again so not sure that he's against it. :)

And as Rafa said - these guys aren't paying their coaches the big bucks to have them quietly sit through a match and just watch the action. Let them earn their pay (this last sentence is me, not Rafa).

I can't stand the knee jerk reaction fans have in tennis about change. I swear that if we were back in the days when wood racquets were used and the new racquet technology came out...the people on MTF would throw a fit about the new racquets. :lol: There are people that still want the short shorts and the all white clothes.

Everything in life evolves...and that includes sports.

Obviously change for change sake isn't good either - but I think this would be good for the sport and good for the fans.

Just my humble opinion though.

Deboogle!.
02-15-2007, 04:22 AM
Lynn, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just don't like Brad

:haha:

Merton
02-15-2007, 04:29 AM
Lynn, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just don't like Brad

:haha:

:haha:
Brad knows everything, he would find a way to entertain the audience besides coaching his player.

Shrinking Violet
02-15-2007, 04:30 AM
I don't like it at all. Brad should be careful what he wishes for anyway - could you imagine sitting beside a losing Andy Murray at the change of ends. I'm sure Brad gets a big enough earful as it is whilst he's in the stands. ;)

I just don't see the need for it - tennis is a one on one sport. You shouldn't need a coach to hold your hand. I'm sure for some guys it would be beneficial - but imagine trying to snap Safin or Malisse out of one of their braincramp periods or something? I just don't see the need for it.

atheneglaukopis
02-15-2007, 04:34 AM
Lynn, I don't necessarily disagree with you, I just don't like Brad

:haha:Lol, they should appoint you and me in charge and our favorite coaches could get more airtime, and Brad would still have to be quiet. :lol: I'd bet he'd love that. :devil:

Deboogle!.
02-15-2007, 04:34 AM
Lol, they should appoint you and me in charge and our favorite coaches could get more airtime, and Brad would still have to be quiet. :lol: I'd bet he'd love that. :devil::haha: Sounds good :lol:

avinash
02-15-2007, 04:37 AM
gilbert the pussy is just sick and tired of watchign his pupils roddick and then murray going down to federer, he thinks he can beat federer.

better he comes onto court himself and plays.

all this coaching on court is bullcrap will never work.

Kalliopeia
02-15-2007, 04:39 AM
Plus it would be fun for the fans. If you've been to a live tournament recently, you'd know how much the fans love the challenge system. Watching a player-coach interaction could be fun...or downright scary knowing some of the players. :lol: I've been to a lot of practices and watching these guys with their coaches can be an interesting experience. And I like the idea of putting a microphone on them for TV coverage.

How interesting is it going to be for TV coverage to hear a player talk to his coach in a language you might not understand? And how are coaches not earning their pay if they don't talk to their players for the three or so hours average that they're actually on court?

I'm not against changes wholesale. I like Hawkeye. But this is just pointless. The mental aspect of the game is far more fascinating to me than seeing a player get his hand held by his coach on the court.

Sjengster
02-15-2007, 04:44 AM
I like the idea because it will add another element to the game. While it's a lovely thought to say that players have to be able to figure out their opponent while on court and come up with solutions, most don't. So the fans are forced to watch a match with a guy making the same (stupid) decisions over and over again for two hours.

Rubbish. "Most" don't? Surely half of them don't, the other half comprising those who win the match. There are so many little strategical battles going on out there in the course of a match, if you come out on the losing end of those battles then you were the poorer player and deserved to lose. End of. I find it ridiculous to imply that people are sitting in the stands going, "Oh, if only he had his coach out there we'd be seeing much better quality tennis!" The only time it's really obvious that players are making continually stupid decisions is when you have someone with seemingly no game plan or rhythm at all (Verdasco is a prime example), but they're a rare breed.

Coaches do more than enough in between matches to earn their pay, they don't need to start wittering advice in the middle of a match, most of which will be unintelligible to both spectator and viewer alike.

nsidhan
02-15-2007, 05:44 AM
So I am interested in seeing what your arguments are for supporting this, and in particular for viewing this as "progress". It would be a change, sure, but so would be a proposal to play in undies. What about this comes about as progress I do not understand.

"Proposal to play in undies"...funniest line EVER :haha:! Came out of nowhere...

I agree with your argument that coaching should be banned.

R.Federer
02-15-2007, 06:41 AM
I see. Okay, thank you for that. I guess everyone has their own idea of entertainment, so I can see that this could be fun for some. I am not sure how this would be done on TV? And for the spectators physically present-- Would they broadcast what the coach says? I mean, they can't because then the opponent would hear it! So how would you enjoy this if you were in the stadium?

I also do not have any hard numbers about players and coaches, and how far down the ladder one has to go to find coachless players. It was my impression, particularly from Vale's "Ladder of success" that you don't have to go very far down to find top players in exhibitions supplementing because winnings aren't enough.

Also, it seems that tennis racket technology, ball weight, court speed and whites never did generate opposition by anyone except perhaps a minority. So imo it's not true that we'd be left watching players in tightie whities with wood rackets. It's RR, length of season and Hawkeye that have created much more controversy and I think the jury is still out on that.

I'm all for helping the guys lower down the ladder - that's why I oppose RRs. That's all for the guys at the top, and they are screwing the guys lower down. (And for many other reasons but that's not what this thread is about).

But most guys have coaches today - you have to go wayyyyy way down in the rankings to find a guy who doesn't have a coach. We're talking ATP tournaments here - not challengers.

I like the idea because it will add another element to the game. While it's a lovely thought to say that players have to be able to figure out their opponent while on court and come up with solutions, most don't. So the fans are forced to watch a match with a guy making the same (stupid) decisions over and over again for two hours.

I would rather have my guy huddle with his coach for a few minutes, figure out what's going on, and come up with a plan to either counter what his opponent is doing, or if the problem is with his own game, let his coach tell him what he's doing wrong. Part of any sport is strategy - and a lot of a player's strategy comes from a coach. But it's still up to the player to implement the plan or change - whether it's given before the match or during the match.

Plus it would be fun for the fans. If you've been to a live tournament recently, you'd know how much the fans love the challenge system. Watching a player-coach interaction could be fun...or downright scary knowing some of the players. :lol: I've been to a lot of practices and watching these guys with their coaches can be an interesting experience. And I like the idea of putting a microphone on them for TV coverage. :yeah:

Also btw - I've never heard Tio Toni talk about on court coaching, but Rafa is for it and Toni gets caught coaching now and again so not sure that he's against it. :)

And as Rafa said - these guys aren't paying their coaches the big bucks to have them quietly sit through a match and just watch the action. Let them earn their pay (this last sentence is me, not Rafa).

I can't stand the knee jerk reaction fans have in tennis about change. I swear that if we were back in the days when wood racquets were used and the new racquet technology came out...the people on MTF would throw a fit about the new racquets. :lol: There are people that still want the short shorts and the all white clothes.

Everything in life evolves...and that includes sports.

Obviously change for change sake isn't good either - but I think this would be good for the sport and good for the fans.

Just my humble opinion though.

amierin
02-15-2007, 06:53 AM
Doesn't sound like Gilbert has too much confidence in Murray thinking for himself out on court when he continues to push for coaching.

Definitely not in support of this. Not every player even has a coach!

That's a wrap.:worship:

Shabazza
02-15-2007, 03:44 PM
Rubbish. "Most" don't? Surely half of them don't, the other half comprising those who win the match. There are so many little strategical battles going on out there in the course of a match, if you come out on the losing end of those battles then you were the poorer player and deserved to lose. End of. I find it ridiculous to imply that people are sitting in the stands going, "Oh, if only he had his coach out there we'd be seeing much better quality tennis!" The only time it's really obvious that players are making continually stupid decisions is when you have someone with seemingly no game plan or rhythm at all (Verdasco is a prime example), but they're a rare breed.

Coaches do more than enough in between matches to earn their pay, they don't need to start wittering advice in the middle of a match, most of which will be unintelligible to both spectator and viewer alike.

Exactly. On-court coaching at the WTA-tour did nothing to improve their game or added excitement for the viewer. It isn't even used that often, anyway! Nicofan's reasoning may sound good in theory, but doesn't work in practice.
I'm for changes who are reasonable and do improve the game and help tennis in general, like changing and shortening the season or stop giving high appearance fees to top players (or at least add the commitment to stay for 2-3 days and do some PR or play doubles).
But hoping for positve results, while there was (the ATP tried it in the late 90s) and is (WTA) evidence it doesn't help tennis at all, is being delusional, imo.

cobalt60
02-15-2007, 05:45 PM
Gilbert is just a media hound and wants attention in my book. Was there ever a poll here on MTF about this since I know there are other threads on this topic. Interesting to see how the MTF population would pan out.

jazar
02-15-2007, 06:09 PM
fuck off, its a shit idea. most of the top women hate it and most of the top men will as well. you can bet your life federer will be against it

bigbhoy
02-15-2007, 06:57 PM
fuck off, its a shit idea. most of the top women hate it and most of the top men will as well. you can bet your life federer will be against it

You think he wouldn't be!

He's at the top of the tree, do you really think he'd be for a coach coming onto the opposing player, giving him tips on altering their gameplan/strategy, that might see him being defeated. I think not!

Someone watching from a different angle/position off court can pick up a lot more little things throughout the match.

Persoanlly I don't see a problem with it, if they're taking it during breaks between sets, then it ain't taking nothing away from the game.

All major sports have it at some point or another: Football, Boxing, Basketball, Golf etc, etc.

If players are doing it on their own time during breaks, then there isn't anything wrong with it.

It would offer some good tv also, think of Aus Open, when Safin was playing Sela. Smashing rackets, shouting abuse, booting the net full force after losing a point. Would like to see how coaches could deal with people like that in such a short time, especially when they're reaching boiling point.

It would be good for the sport in those instances, where players can get so steamed that they lose their heads. At least with coaches, they can be there to calm them down & get their heads back in the game either by words of support or a change to their charge's tactics. Meaning better tennis for the fans in the end.

jazar
02-15-2007, 07:41 PM
You think he wouldn't be!

He's at the top of the tree, do you really think he'd be for a coach coming onto the opposing player, giving him tips on altering their gameplan/strategy, that might see him being defeated. I think not!

Someone watching from a different angle/position off court can pick up a lot more little things throughout the match.

Persoanlly I don't see a problem with it, if they're taking it during breaks between sets, then it ain't taking nothing away from the game.

All major sports have it at some point or another: Football, Boxing, Basketball, Golf etc, etc.

If players are doing it on their own time during breaks, then there isn't anything wrong with it.

It would offer some good tv also, think of Aus Open, when Safin was playing Sela. Smashing rackets, shouting abuse, booting the net full force after losing a point. Would like to see how coaches could deal with people like that in such a short time, especially when they're reaching boiling point.

It would be good for the sport in those instances, where players can get so steamed that they lose their heads. At least with coaches, they can be there to calm them down & get their heads back in the game either by words of support or a change to their charge's tactics. Meaning better tennis for the fans in the end.

i prefer tennis to be one on one. once you are on court what happens is down to you, you have to figure out how to win. that is what makes the game so exciting. getting a coach on is an easy way out and its use can be exploited, as it could be used just as a rest and then the gamesmanship issue could arise

NicoFan
02-15-2007, 07:43 PM
Someone watching from a different angle/position off court can pick up a lot more little things throughout the match.


Very true.

I love the strategy in sports. Again, it would give tennis an added dimension that would interesting.

And I don't think that people should use the WTA has an example. Nothing could help a lot of the players there.

But speaking of the WTA, a good example of why I like coaching happened in Serena's match against Peer at the Oz Open. Serena was playing a too defensive, non-attacking game. Her mom (serving as coach) finally yelled out to her "get out of Melbourne!" Meaning Serena was standing so far back from the baseline that she was standing on the lettering "Melbourne". Meaning she was playing too defensively. Meaning - Serena you need to attack!!!

Serena listened to Mom, and the rest is history.

Serena certainly isn't a player who needs someone to hold her hand throughout a match. But every now and again, as in life, a little help from your friends...or coach...gets you through.

jayjay
02-15-2007, 07:46 PM
I'd only be in favour if Coria was allowed to bring all his 678 coaches on to court with him, on court coaching is a serious subject and you need a second opinion. And a third, and a fourth, and a fifth...

R.Federer
02-15-2007, 07:58 PM
you can bet your life federer will be against it
He has made a statement about it.

The biggest obstacle could be opposition from the players with several big names against the idea.

"It's a joke," said world number one Roger Federer. "Why change it? We don't need it.

"We're the only sport that doesn't have it and that's good. The fans don't care."

R.Federer
02-15-2007, 08:03 PM
But speaking of the WTA, a good example of why I like coaching happened in Serena's match against Peer at the Oz Open. Serena was playing a too defensive, non-attacking game. Her mom (serving as coach) finally yelled out to her "get out of Melbourne!"

Isn't that illegal under current rules? Well, Serena might still have won that match anyway. There is no saying that it's due to coaching or something else.

sondraj06
02-15-2007, 08:14 PM
Just like with the RR, I don't see the horror in it. If you look at it like other sports, they get coached no big deal. People don't say, well the colts didn't really deserve to win because the players couldn't figure out the other teams strategy by themselves. Yeah I know it's a different game so the rules are different. But a lot is put on the quarterback to come up with plays and to know what to do during crunch time, that being said he does get coached at the same time, at lot of pressure is put on the quarterback to make decisions that is going to advance the team. That's not to say he is stupid and can't think for him self he gets advice from his coach. The same with basketball, in all sports you come out with a plan. even in tennis, so it's O.K to come out with a plan before the game starts with the coach but not be able to tweek that game with the coach when it starts, that's is what coaches do. It's not like they'll be able to stop every 10 seconds for advice whenever they feel like it. So the players will be left to think for themselves , and when things get rough to get a 3rd party view on it, it doesn't mean it's going to work. maybe it will maybe it won't. I do agree that it wouldn't be fair for those players who don't have the benefit of money to pay for their coach to travel with them or who don't have the benefit of paying for top notch coaching, that's the only argument I'd say ex it for. But on the other hand i can see how some people would equate it with chess, in chess you don't unless I'm mistake but in competition, get advice from a coach. But i only see the similarities being that they are both individual sports. Other than that I like to think of tennis in the same realm as Football,basketball,soccer,etc.

NicoFan
02-15-2007, 08:15 PM
Isn't that illegal under current rules? Well, Serena might still have won that match anyway. There is no saying that it's due to coaching or something else.

And you don't think that all the players do this?

Maybe not your favorite, but he isn't human.

But for the mere mortals on the circuit, I would say that it is a fairly standard practice.

R.Federer
02-15-2007, 08:19 PM
But for the mere mortals on the circuit, I would say that it is a fairly standard practice.

I think if it was that much, there would be a lot more getting caught and getting fined. Like Yuri.

I don't think I have seen Connors ever try to coach. The sf would have been one place where he might have most needed to. Nor Stefanki, nor even Gilbert. I mean, these people know what the rules are, they know that the TV crew is occasionally trained on them. If it's not the TV, there are also media hounds around. They will openly ask it in post match interviews.

What are recent examples, other than the Tio Toni one?

Edit-- So no one said anything to Serena about this, even though Sharapova was fined on behalf of her dad just a day earlier or a day later?

sondraj06
02-15-2007, 08:21 PM
I think if it was that much, there would be a lot more getting caught and getting fined. Like Yuri.

I don't think I have seen Connors ever try to coach. The sf would have been one place where he might have most needed to. Nor Stefanki, nor even Gilbert. I mean, these people know what the rules are, they know that the TV crew is occasionally trained on them. If it's not the TV, there are also media hounds around. They will openly ask it in post match interviews.

What are recent examples, other than the Tio Toni one?

Argghh always with the nadal.

jazar
02-15-2007, 08:43 PM
He has made a statement about it.

The biggest obstacle could be opposition from the players with several big names against the idea.

"It's a joke," said world number one Roger Federer. "Why change it? We don't need it.

"We're the only sport that doesn't have it and that's good. The fans don't care."

absolutely. they should listen to federer. he knows best

R.Federer
02-15-2007, 08:51 PM
Argghh always with the nadal.

It was the only one that has come to light because Federer made a stink about it, whether correctly or not. That was exactly my question. What are the other recent examples, if it is as Nico Fan says happening a lot

sondraj06
02-15-2007, 08:56 PM
No I was kidding, they do it. I just don't see much of a problem with it.

cobalt60
02-15-2007, 09:01 PM
Rubbish. "Most" don't? Surely half of them don't, the other half comprising those who win the match. There are so many little strategical battles going on out there in the course of a match, if you come out on the losing end of those battles then you were the poorer player and deserved to lose. End of. I find it ridiculous to imply that people are sitting in the stands going, "Oh, if only he had his coach out there we'd be seeing much better quality tennis!" The only time it's really obvious that players are making continually stupid decisions is when you have someone with seemingly no game plan or rhythm at all (Verdasco is a prime example), but they're a rare breed.

Coaches do more than enough in between matches to earn their pay, they don't need to start wittering advice in the middle of a match, most of which will be unintelligible to both spectator and viewer alike.

fuck off, its a shit idea. most of the top women hate it and most of the top men will as well. you can bet your life federer will be against it

You guys don't mince words do ya? ;)

Come on thread starter-make a poll. I'd be interested in the % of MTFers here.

NicoFan
02-15-2007, 09:09 PM
I'm not telling names. ;)

But even the announcers on TV who are against on court coaching have admitted that there is a lot of coaching from the stands.

R.Federer
02-15-2007, 09:19 PM
I'm not telling names. ;)

But even the announcers on TV who are against on court coaching have admitted that there is a lot of coaching from the stands.

Well, if there is "a lot" of it from the stands, then there will be people aside from you who have also seen it. Because we basically all watch the same matches, on TV or in the stadium. So if there is in fact some evidence, someone will post it.

I watch so much tennis on TV or in stadiums and I basically don't see much of coaching at all, and certainly not in any obvious way. It is puzzling that someone else is watching the same stuff and seeing it. Although with your not telling names, I am not sure if what you are saying is even credible. It's not like you have anything to lose. You are not someone's coach, and you are not a pro player. You are anonymous on this board :shrug:

How about -- who are the TV commentators who are saying this? Surely that is not also a secret. ;)

NicoFan
02-15-2007, 09:39 PM
R. Federer you are making too big of a deal out of this. This isn't new.

For example, South American coaches are known for coaching from the stands. And I'll even name one - Horacio de la Pena when he used to coach Fernando Gonzalez.

The announcers were the American announcers - I can't remember who Mary Carillo was talking to but one of the announcers who wants on court coaching. And they were saying coaching is already being done from the stands. And Carillo replied something like well just because people are doing it doesn't make it right. And that wasn't the first time...or won't be the last time...they talk about this issue on TV.

SushiMinimal
02-15-2007, 09:47 PM
would look like babysitting

only gilbert could say something like that

t0x
02-15-2007, 09:49 PM
This is a meh sort of idea.

I honestly couldn't care less if they brought it in.. I don't think it would do me (a viewer) any good, but it wouldn't be that bad either.

I'm sure the players have hand signals and such worked out with their coaches anyway... lol.

R.Federer
02-15-2007, 09:52 PM
I thought it would be perhaps Massu's coach, and that may be you did not want him to be outted.

I am not making a big deal of it. This is an issue which I am interested in not making its way into professional tennis, and I have never thought there was any good in it. I asked because it was apparently happening 'a lot' and I have seen it but a handful of times. I actually thought you were making a big deal out of it with the sudden secrecy, like as though there was something personal at stake. This is a public and anonymous forum.

Sjengster
02-15-2007, 10:09 PM
I've seen matches where a player was warned for coaching (Henin one year at either IW or the US Open), but the only time I can recall seeing it, and when it was not picked up by the umpire, was when flies apparently started buzzing around Hernan Gumy during Canas' match with Henman in IW 2005, and he had to wave his hand around his face in a very calculated fashion to ward them off. But it's something that's very easy to stop if the tour could be bothered to do it, just have an official sit in the box and report anything that crosses the line from encouragement and exhortation into actual tactical advice. Yes, they might have to speak the same language as the coach, that's not impossible either.

Gulliver
02-15-2007, 10:49 PM
I find it interesting that after the publicity surrounding Federer's accusations of Nadal's uncle coaching him in Rome, Nadal has won only one title (admittedly the FO) in 9 months. He has also become a big advocate of on court coaching. This may be putting 2 and 2 together = 5, but there have been plenty of examples during Nadal's matches where he has looked somewhat unsure, so is he missing what he had before, and before his uncle became rather more closely monitored by TV and officials?

Sjengster
02-15-2007, 11:34 PM
Federer himself seemed to suggest that recently in an interview when he said it was tough for Nadal when people started questioning his relationship with his coach after Rome. One still can't be certain about those accusations, mind you; I don't think Federer would make the claim up just out of bitterness at losing (yes folks you heard that right, "Fed-tard" at work here evidently), but given that one of the languages he doesn't know is Spanish, I wonder whether he misinterpreted Uncle Toni's gestures/words. I mean he's obviously an animated character, he applauds the good shots of Nadal's opponents plenty of times during matches. On the other hand, when you're down on the court with the stands right beside you for five hours and five minutes, you can probably start to tell the difference between what is encouragement and what is coaching.

NicoFan
02-15-2007, 11:35 PM
I thought it would be perhaps Massu's coach, and that may be you did not want him to be outted.

I am not making a big deal of it. This is an issue which I am interested in not making its way into professional tennis, and I have never thought there was any good in it. I asked because it was apparently happening 'a lot' and I have seen it but a handful of times. I actually thought you were making a big deal out of it with the sudden secrecy, like as though there was something personal at stake. This is a public and anonymous forum.

:lol: I'm sure Nico has been coached more than a few times on court.

I actually gave that brief answer before because I needed to get off the internet. Wasn't trying to be evasive. :lol:

Thought of another story though on the way home.

This was a long time ago so if I get a few of the details wrong and others know the story, don't yell at me.

I think it was in 2002 but definitely at the US Open, Tommy Haas was having a difficult time on court, and as usual was taking it out on then coach Redd. :lol: He ended up winning the match, and at the US Open, the winners are interviewed by one of the TV announcers afterwards right on court for everyone in the stands to hear and the TV audience too.

So the guy says to Tommy, you were pretty upset at your coach. And Tommy says, yeah, I was having a lot of problems out there, and he wasn't helping me. And the announcer says - but Tommy, coaching isn't allowed during a match. Tommy gives him this very dismissive gesture, and yes, I know, but everyone does it. I still have to go out an do what he tells me to do.

It was sooo funny, everyone was cracking up in the crowd. Even Carillo who hates on court coaching was laughing. I think it was Johnny Mac who said - Tommy's going to get fined for that - but he was laughing when he said it. :lol:

Action Jackson
02-15-2007, 11:40 PM
It would be very easy to stop coaching, just have an official sit behind each player box and then monitor it from there.

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 12:06 AM
Thanks for that. I think I remember that one as well. I guess, as with the Serena Out of Melbourne example, coaching does happen. As others have said, the ATP probably either disregards it because they feel that the coaches cannot do THAT much from the stands, except give somewhat general instructions (Get out of Melbourne) or that the ATP perhaps doesn't perceive it as being done that much. I can speak for myself, that having watches hours and hours of matches where there is frequent coverage of the player box, I have not seen much of it.

There is also the integrity of the players. You know, this is against the rules and they are aware of it. Just like faking an injury to regroup or confusing tiredness with injury, some players will take advantage of the situation when they know nothing is going to be done about it.

I still have not understood the entertainment value part. How would this be done for the court side audience? By blaring the coaches' decisions for everyone to hear?


:lol: I'm sure Nico has been coached more than a few times on court.

So the guy says to Tommy, you were pretty upset at your coach. And Tommy says, yeah, I was having a lot of problems out there, and he wasn't helping me. And the announcer says - but Tommy, coaching isn't allowed during a match. Tommy gives him this very dismissive gesture, and yes, I know, but everyone does it. I still have to go out an do what he tells me to do.

It was sooo funny, everyone was cracking up in the crowd. Even Carillo who hates on court coaching was laughing. I think it was Johnny Mac who said - Tommy's going to get fined for that - but he was laughing when he said it. :lol:

Pfloyd
02-16-2007, 12:26 AM
It's not such a crazy Idea. Maybe they should have on-court advice or coaching restricted to mintues, or during resting intervals.

I don't think this is such a bad idea, as, say, the round robin tournaments, which I now admit arent the best idea for tennis.

nobama
02-16-2007, 01:46 AM
It's not such a crazy Idea. Maybe they should have on-court advice or coaching restricted to mintues, or during resting intervals.

I don't think this is such a bad idea, as, say, the round robin tournaments, which I now admit arent the best idea for tennis.Why do you think it's not a bad idea? For me the beauty of tennis is the players have to think for themselves out there. Like when you're taking an exam in school. You can't stop in the middle and ask your teacher for help. They're trying this out on the WTA tour and I haven't noticed any difference in the matches. Plus if the coach doesn't speak a language the viewer can understand what do they get out of it? I think this idea by the tours that they need to create "entertainment" for the fans is a joke. Pretty soon it will be like WTT and you'll have music blaring in between games - all in the name of creating "entertainment" for the fans. I'd love to know where these clowns get their research that this is what the fans want.

Deboogle!.
02-16-2007, 02:50 AM
So the guy says to Tommy, you were pretty upset at your coach. And Tommy says, yeah, I was having a lot of problems out there, and he wasn't helping me. And the announcer says - but Tommy, coaching isn't allowed during a match. Tommy gives him this very dismissive gesture, and yes, I know, but everyone does it. I still have to go out an do what he tells me to do.I don't remember the context, but Andy has said the same thing. I distinctly remember at some point late last year he said something like "what? coaching from the stands? NO ONE DOES THAT!!!!!" very sarcastically.

It happens. It would be naive to think it doesn't. Probably more than we all think. But probably most of these little gestures that the coaches do have very little, if any, effect on the ultimate outcome of the matches.

Dusk Soldier
02-16-2007, 03:29 AM
Well, if there is "a lot" of it from the stands, then there will be people aside from you who have also seen it. Because we basically all watch the same matches, on TV or in the stadium. So if there is in fact some evidence, someone will post it.

I watch so much tennis on TV or in stadiums and I basically don't see much of coaching at all, and certainly not in any obvious way. It is puzzling that someone else is watching the same stuff and seeing it. Although with your not telling names, I am not sure if what you are saying is even credible. It's not like you have anything to lose. You are not someone's coach, and you are not a pro player. You are anonymous on this board :shrug:

How about -- who are the TV commentators who are saying this? Surely that is not also a secret. ;)I remember on ESPN when they were calling the women's US OPEN final, they did a little segment on the pretty obvious coaching Sharapova was getting from her camp in the stands. They were mouthing words to eachother, and making weird hand signs.

And then after showing all that, one of them add "and don't think this isn't going on on the other side as well." Meaning basically that both players weren't receiving occasional tips.

I don't think players should be able to call coaching timeouts, as that would break up the pace of the game. But they get like 2 mins between each set, Why can't they spend that getting a quick pep talk from their coach.

Dusk Soldier
02-16-2007, 03:46 AM
It would be very easy to stop coaching, just have an official sit behind each player box and then monitor it from there.

I play Euchre, which is a card game, often during breaks between classes at school, and in that game you're not allowed to communicate your hand to your partner or anyone.

However at the beginning of the game when everyone is given the oppourtunity to declare the trump suit, sometimes you want to give your partner an idea of what your hand is like so that they can make a more informed decision when they are choosing the suit.

My partner and I would use phrases like: "Are we still on for clubbing tonight?" for the clubs suit, or "I really love your hair today." for hearts.

But then we'd always get caught cheating. So when playing against more serious opponents we'd always lose.

Did that put an end our cheating? of course not. Now we use a predetermined system of body gestures, and such that we know others aren't going to be looking for.

And if the analogy was too hard to follow, what I'm basically saying is that coaches and players found a way around the current set of rules. And nothing short of making Professor X the permanent chair umpire is going to stop them from continuing to cheat.

Kolya
02-16-2007, 05:04 AM
Federer wants status quo to maintain his dominance.

I don't like tennis coaching on court. It will change a lot if this is allowed, tennis will never be the same.

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 06:21 AM
Well this is analogous to saying, we know there are always some students who bend the rules and cheat during exams. So lets just be fair and let them all cheat a little, just a 2 minute reference to notes during a break.

It seems odd to counter the problem by legalizing it. Some of these players, they behave like juniors out there. Cannot think, need to look after each shot for support in the support box. Need encouragement after games. Abuse their coaches verbally.

I remember on ESPN when they were calling the women's US OPEN final, they did a little segment on the pretty obvious coaching Sharapova was getting from her camp in the stands. They were mouthing words to eachother, and making weird hand signs.

And then after showing all that, one of them add "and don't think this isn't going on on the other side as well." Meaning basically that both players weren't receiving occasional tips.

I don't think players should be able to call coaching timeouts, as that would break up the pace of the game. But they get like 2 mins between each set, Why can't they spend that getting a quick pep talk from their coach.

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 06:23 AM
Federer wants status quo to maintain his dominance.


He is also a traditionalist. He does not like RR, he does not like Hawk eye. RR would only help him assert his dominance further, he has called it nonsense. I don't think Hawkeye is systematically helping any player. Ergo, I don't think he dislikes on court coaching to maintain his dominance. But obviously I don't know what is in the man's head.

sondraj06
02-16-2007, 06:24 AM
I don't think on court coaching is the same as cheating on a test. I could see it if Players were stealing points from the their opponent.

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 06:34 AM
I don't think on court coaching is the same as cheating on a test. I could see it if Players were stealing points from the their opponent.

In which examination are students stealing points from others? What are you saying exactly? Cheating means using means that are not permitted to get ahead of others. I don't know how to make the analogy any clearer.

Deboogle!.
02-16-2007, 07:01 AM
Well this is analogous to saying, we know there are always some students who bend the rules and cheat during exams. So lets just be fair and let them all cheat a little, just a 2 minute reference to notes during a break.

It seems odd to counter the problem by legalizing it. Some of these players, they behave like juniors out there. Cannot think, need to look after each shot for support in the support box. Need encouragement after games. Abuse their coaches verbally.I agree with you. I think they should try to enforce the rule better.

nobama
02-16-2007, 09:03 AM
Federer wants status quo to maintain his dominance.
The guy was able to win 11 titles (including 3 slams) without a coach. That might have something to do with his opinion on it. Anyway I'm not aware of die-hard fans craving this, and I can't see this as something that would make a non-fan start watching. But I'm not surprised that Brad Gilbert likes the idea. :rolleyes:

Kolya
02-16-2007, 09:20 AM
Tennis is known as an "individual" sport - Man vs Man.

Why change this?
Will it increase people watching tennis matches? No.

Theres no point.

Action Jackson
02-16-2007, 10:05 AM
And if the analogy was too hard to follow, what I'm basically saying is that coaches and players found a way around the current set of rules. And nothing short of making Professor X the permanent chair umpire is going to stop them from continuing to cheat.

You could have written all that in 2 sentences. Basically, there are always going to be people trying to cheat the system, just make it more difficult for them and they are going to look so ridiculous with gestures, trying to get the point across, but the player needs to find the solutions.

Coaching is fine for Davis Cup and Düsseldorf.

NicoFan
02-16-2007, 01:25 PM
I don't remember the context, but Andy has said the same thing. I distinctly remember at some point late last year he said something like "what? coaching from the stands? NO ONE DOES THAT!!!!!" very sarcastically.

It happens. It would be naive to think it doesn't. Probably more than we all think. But probably most of these little gestures that the coaches do have very little, if any, effect on the ultimate outcome of the matches.

It is naive to think it doesn't happen.

And for the people saying that it's cheating - cheating is doping or something like that. This is one of these "rules were made to be broken" moments. Coaching is allowed in all sports except tennis. For me, it just shouldn't be such a big deal.

As for the entertainment value - maybe I'm easily amused, but I find the dynamic between the players and coaches fun to watch. I won't bore with a million stories, but I love watching practices at tournaments, and love watching the way they interact. Plus during matches, I try to sit near the coaches if possible. And you get to hear the chatter between the players and coaches. Can be very interesting.

sondraj06
02-16-2007, 02:19 PM
In which examination are students stealing points from others? What are you saying exactly? Cheating means using means that are not permitted to get ahead of others. I don't know how to make the analogy any clearer.

Nope, it just seems like an unfair comparison. It's not that drastic as some people have pointed out here, it doesn't even really change the outcome that much. Stealing answers and stealing points that was what I was saying. Yeah they are both breaking the rules but I don't see them the same.

sondraj06
02-16-2007, 02:21 PM
It is naive to think it doesn't happen.

And for the people saying that it's cheating - cheating is doping or something like that. This is one of these "rules were made to be broken" moments. Coaching is allowed in all sports except tennis. For me, it just shouldn't be such a big deal.

As for the entertainment value - maybe I'm easily amused, but I find the dynamic between the players and coaches fun to watch. I won't bore with a million stories, but I love watching practices at tournaments, and love watching the way they interact. Plus during matches, I try to sit near the coaches if possible. And you get to hear the chatter between the players and coaches. Can be very interesting.

I agree I think sometimes tennis folks, players and fans a like are a little too dramatic, when it comes to this game. It's like the inquisition has arrived all over again. rules change, move on. And I don't think they did it because they can't regulate it. I think it came more from them seeing that it happpens and it's really not that big of a deal, in fact it's not like players are stealing point. I'm sure if they were they wouldn't all of a sudden make that O.K. If they really felt like it was still something bad to enforce they would. I think it's like abolition is it really worth all the annoyance. No, it's not that serious.

Deboogle!.
02-16-2007, 05:33 PM
I agree I think sometimes tennis folks, players and fans a like are a little too dramatic, when it comes to this game. It's like the inquisition has arrived all over again. rules change, move on. And I don't think they did it because they can't regulate it. I think it came more from them seeing that it happpens and it's really not that big of a deal, in fact it's not like players are stealing point. I'm sure if they were they wouldn't all of a sudden make that O.K. If they really felt like it was still something bad to enforce they would. I think it's like abolition is it really worth all the annoyance. No, it's not that serious.For me it's about the fact that tennis is a man vs. man sport. Federer showed us that if you're really good, you don't even need a coach. Shouldn't those players who are talented enough to win matches without being coached midway through be allowed to take advantage of that advantage? I think so.

Shabazza
02-16-2007, 05:38 PM
For me it's about the fact that tennis is a man vs. man sport. Federer showed us that if you're really good, you don't even need a coach. Shouldn't those players who are talented enough to win matches without being coached midway through be allowed to take advantage of that advantage? I think so.

Ditto.

NicoFan
02-16-2007, 06:25 PM
For me it's about the fact that tennis is a man vs. man sport. Federer showed us that if you're really good, you don't even need a coach. Shouldn't those players who are talented enough to win matches without being coached midway through be allowed to take advantage of that advantage? I think so.

Not really.

I look at it like in work or school situations. Some people do better working on their own. Some people do better working in groups. Doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. Just means that people work differently. :shrug:

Tennis (as with any sport) is made up of many components. Being able to think for yourself is just one of them. And my humble opinion, it isn't the most important. I'd rather see great groundstrokes, movement, service placement, etc.

And again, Fed is a poor example. He's so far above everybody. I don't think you can make rules that just apply to the top less than 1% of all players.

Deboogle!.
02-16-2007, 06:39 PM
Not really.

I look at it like in work or school situations. Some people do better working on their own. Some people do better working in groups. Doesn't mean that one is right and one is wrong. Just means that people work differently. :shrug:

Tennis (as with any sport) is made up of many components. Being able to think for yourself is just one of them. And my humble opinion, it isn't the most important. I'd rather see great groundstrokes, movement, service placement, etc.

And again, Fed is a poor example. He's so far above everybody. I don't think you can make rules that just apply to the top less than 1% of all players.But allowing coaching very arguably advantages the top players too. Because they are the ones with good, expensive coaches. Allowing coaching does not help the guy ranked No. 94 who has no coach to help him because he can't afford it, not because he's too good to not need one.

Fed is not the only player who can win without being coached during the match, but he is an example that being that good is an advantage Fed has and I think he should be allowed to take advantage of it.

I don't think working is a good example because in a work environment, people in the office have a common goal, so of course they will help each other - they all want to get the deal, or win the case, or whatever. Tennis is a competition. The best man should win. It's not a collegial atmosphere like work is. And having been in a highly competitive school atmosphere, trust me, people don't often help each other. When you add competition to the mix, it changes everything.

I also think that most of these guys would say that coaching wouldn't even really help. When Andy was asked about what effect having Jimmy Connors at his matches was, he answered that besides the fact that it's cool and comforting just to have him there, the work is done before the matches.

I just really fail to see what effect allowing coaching would have, and I don't see how it would make anything more fair because of how many players don't even have coaches. and as R.Federer said, just because something is against the rules now but a lot of people do it doesn't mean it should be legalized. I can think of dozens of things that are against the rules or illegal but that lots of people do that still shouldn't be allowed. It's really flawed logic.

sondraj06
02-16-2007, 06:41 PM
For me it's about the fact that tennis is a man vs. man sport. Federer showed us that if you're really good, you don't even need a coach. Shouldn't those players who are talented enough to win matches without being coached midway through be allowed to take advantage of that advantage? I think so.

I don't think Federer is an example of why it shouldn't be allowed. he is one player. It has nothing to do with being really good. Do you think Fed popped out the womb being great, never needing anyone to tell him a thing, no he just has the hang of it now. and there is no need for him to change it so he doesn't need a coach to much now. that doesn't mean when players start figuring out his game that he won't bring some one in to tweek it, it just doens't need to be tweek right now, because he worked with people that prepared his game to the point where it is now. so I don't see the logice in using him to say that if you're really good than you don't need anyone's help.

Deboogle!.
02-16-2007, 06:44 PM
I don't think Federer is an example of why it shouldn't be allowed. he is one player. It has nothing to do with being really good. Do you think Fed popped out the womb being great, never needing anyone to tell him a thing, no he just has the hang of it now. and there is no need for him to change it so he doesn't need a coach to much now. that doesn't mean when players start figuring out his game that he won't bring some one in to tweek it, it just doens't need to be tweek right now, because he worked with people that prepared his game to the point where it is now. so I don't see the logice in using him to say that if you're really good than you don't need anyone's help.All of that is completely irrelevant. The point is not that coaching is not necessary. We're talking about coaching DURING a match right now. I really do not think Fed needs to be coached during a match. I really think that a lot of the other top players don't, either, and that's why they are top players. Being able to win and do it all on your own is part of the whole thing. Sure, great coaching is invaluable. I just don't think during a match is the right place for it.

sondraj06
02-16-2007, 06:51 PM
All of that is completely irrelevant. The point is not that coaching is not necessary. We're talking about coaching DURING a match right now. I really do not think Fed needs to be coached during a match. I really think that a lot of the other top players don't, either, and that's why they are top players. Being able to win and do it all on your own is part of the whole thing. Sure, great coaching is invaluable. I just don't think during a match is the right place for it.

If fed and other players are so smart and it doesn't effect the game anyway, then how is it going to harm that winning genius. If you come out on court with a game plan with your coach, then have to tweek it during the match, that is no different than any other sport. I don't see it as that big of a deal. Thinking is always apart of the equation whether it's on court or off. And I'm sure they won't allow them to stop ever single point to confer with their coach, if things aren't going as plan, you should be able to change that plan with the person who helped you make that plan. Yes even during matches. But i do see the problem with the inequality that will rise from the coaching and money issue

nobama
02-16-2007, 07:39 PM
I think the WTA experimentation has shown that on court coaching doesn't produce better matches. The fans aren't asking for it so I don't see what the point of it is other than egomanicas like Brad Glibert to get more time on TV.

R.Federer
02-16-2007, 08:28 PM
This idea that "tennis is the only sport which does not have it, so why not have it" is yet another gem of a non sequitur for making an argument for coaching.

Tennis is also the only, or one of very few, sports which is played on multiple surfaces. There is a reason you don't hear people asking for progress in golf by asking for it to be played on rebound or by introducing challenges on their shots.

I am still yet to understand, how would this be done for the entertainment side. They can't broadcast it because all strategies will be heard by the opponent. So just seeing a player and a coach huddle during a changeover, that gives you entertainment?!

cobalt60
02-16-2007, 09:02 PM
I am having this strange picture of Gilbert coaching Murray inbetween sets saying "yada yada yada". That's how much help coaching during a match is:tape:

J'torian where are you when I need a morphed picture;)

Sjengster
02-16-2007, 09:06 PM
Actually in Murray and Gilbert's case it would take away a lot of the entertainment, as I'm sure Murray wouldn't mouth off to the same extent with Gilbert right next to him. Anyway Andy, you're a big boy now, there's a very good reason why he's giving you "nothing!"

For those of you who are talking about the conservatism of tennis and resistance to change, it's worth pointing out that the no-coaching rule was an innovation introduced into tennis in the late 70s, almost entirely because of the "Svengali-like" presence of Ion Tiriac alongside Vilas. It's mentioned in the book on Borg's career published in 1980 by Gene Scott, who is against the removal of the coach from the court (there's a quote from Roscoe Tanner who has the same opinion). Interestingly enough, Borg and Lennart Bergelin were in favour of the new rule.

NicoFan
02-16-2007, 09:12 PM
But allowing coaching very arguably advantages the top players too. Because they are the ones with good, expensive coaches. Allowing coaching does not help the guy ranked No. 94 who has no coach to help him because he can't afford it, not because he's too good to not need one.

Fed is not the only player who can win without being coached during the match, but he is an example that being that good is an advantage Fed has and I think he should be allowed to take advantage of it.

I don't think working is a good example because in a work environment, people in the office have a common goal, so of course they will help each other - they all want to get the deal, or win the case, or whatever. Tennis is a competition. The best man should win. It's not a collegial atmosphere like work is. And having been in a highly competitive school atmosphere, trust me, people don't often help each other. When you add competition to the mix, it changes everything.

I also think that most of these guys would say that coaching wouldn't even really help. When Andy was asked about what effect having Jimmy Connors at his matches was, he answered that besides the fact that it's cool and comforting just to have him there, the work is done before the matches.

I just really fail to see what effect allowing coaching would have, and I don't see how it would make anything more fair because of how many players don't even have coaches. and as R.Federer said, just because something is against the rules now but a lot of people do it doesn't mean it should be legalized. I can think of dozens of things that are against the rules or illegal but that lots of people do that still shouldn't be allowed. It's really flawed logic.

In any sport, the best player/team has the best coaches. That's just life.

I guess it's from watching other sports as well as tennis, but I just think that coaching before, during, after a game/match can be beneficial.

Even some of the great players in sport have relied on coaching during games. If I remember right, Roger Staubach, the great Dallas QB, never called his own plays - they always came from the sideline.

But we'll just have to agree to disagree. :lol:

As always, Deb, it's a pleasure to debate with you. You always have good constructive arguments. :yeah:

RFederer - as I said in another post, I may be easily amused, but I often find the dynamic between player and coach to be interesting to watch. Comes from going to tournaments each summer and watching many practices. Maybe others wouldn't find it interesting. It's just my opinion.

cobalt60
02-16-2007, 09:22 PM
http://www.menstennisforums.com/showthread.php?t=82311&highlight=coaching+court

one of the other threads. Yada yada yada;) jk