Tennis Q & A

[Corbon]

Before making a bunch of topics, I'll rather throw all the questions I have into one. TIA for answers.

-When a player appears exhausted or even injured but still wants to go on, is the coach allowed to "throw the towel" to abandon the match because he is worried about his player's health? Or is the player the sole authority here, even if he/she is underaged?

-Can you be cautioned for absolutely deliberately aiming at the opponent's body with smashes and other hard hits or is it just bad sportsmanship?

[emate007]

No to both.

[djarvik]

To the first:
I have never seen a person in tennis in need of that rule. Or at least I can't recall, thus deeming this rule useless - the less rules the better.

To the second:
No. It is a valid tactic and if you ask me, should be used more often. Smashes into the body are way more effective and completely take out the swing from your opponent.




One rule I am on the fence with, is coaching. Part of me believes very strongly it will benefit the game and will add an excellent layer of strategy. There are guys out there that can benefit immensely from on court coaching. The other part of me kinda wants that One Man show to remain. Just undecided on this.

[Corbon]

There's always a grey zone of what can be considered on court coaching or not. For example I have often seen Günter Bosch (early coach of Boris Becker) doing handsigns obviously signalling things like "keep cool" whenever his player was looking at him. You probably can't completely enforce that rule, unless you forbid any sort of eye contact which won't happen of course. But I am totally with the idea of the player being out on the court of his own.

[djarvik]

Yeah, that's the thing. Can you elaborate "why" - the player being out on the court of his own?

Like, why is that better then the coaching idea? All the history and tradition aside.

Personally, I can't justify it. I think the game-play would be better, more exciting. And it will open a door for a "real-time" coaches, the opens who can really analyze the game on the fly and make adjustments.

[Vieira151]

I dunno. I just like the idea of them being on their own., The players are forced to read and adjust themselves. If we had coaching, that would completely remove one element of being a tennis player. You wouldn't even have to worry about being able to read the game or worrying about which tactics to employ. You could play for a little while and have your coach tell you everything that your player does, looking at the analysis of the first set that he has collected on his iPad, or whatever.

You will then get a generation of players who don't need to think about the game and only do as they are told. Granted, they will still have to try and adjust and it will be good for them to know about tactics but they just won't be as clever or as alert compared to players who don't use coaches.

I can see why coaching during a match is very important and necessary during a team game, because all the players have to be co-ordinated together and have to work as a team. So I can see coaching being used in doubles (though it's not too hard to discuss between the two of you what to do) but in singles, where it is a sport where you as a player decide what to do I just don't see it as necessary or beneficial to the singles game.


Hopefully this makes sense. I just kind of half assedly wrote this.

[djarvik]

I dunno. I just like the idea of them being on their own., The players are forced to read and adjust themselves. If we had coaching, that would completely remove one element of being a tennis player. You wouldn't even have to worry about being able to read the game or worrying about which tactics to employ. You could play for a little while and have your coach tell you everything that your player does, looking at the analysis of the first set that he has collected on his iPad, or whatever.

You will then get a generation of players who don't need to think about the game and only do as they are told. Granted, they will still have to try and adjust and it will be good for them to know about tactics but they just won't be as clever or as alert compared to players who don't use coaches.

I can see why coaching during a match is very important and necessary during a team game, because all the players have to be co-ordinated together and have to work as a team. So I can see coaching being used in doubles (though it's not too hard to discuss between the two of you what to do) but in singles, where it is a sport where you as a player decide what to do I just don't see it as necessary or beneficial to the singles game.


Hopefully this makes sense. I just kind of half assedly wrote this.

Well, other sports benefit from it boxing for example. Besides, you are "defining" tennis player - thus taking tradition into account, I asked if you can put it on the side and get to the technical side of things.

You have to remember, the coaching cannot be done till change over (theoretically). That is a few games where a player has a chance to execute a plan presented to him. So in essence, the game becomes more strategic. Remember as well the fact that both players now have coaching, with different approaches and different strategies and skill sets. So it will yield a lot of momentum changes, strategy changes etc.... which to me will only make the game more exciting.

From the tradition side of things, and purely emotional side - I am with you, it feel right. But if we put this on the side, I cannot come up with a valid reason not to do this. This would be an evolution in sport. Most sports evolve, tennis should not be an exception, and it isn't.

[Vieira151]

I was trying to put tradition out the way.

But I forgot about boxing. I know for example you can do coaching in table tennis, though I'm not sure about badminton...

But I know what you are going for. What I'm going for, is that tennis players should be able to perform these tactical changes by themselves during a match, and not have need of a coach.

Sure, you can have the coach tell you things between matches. Maybe a list of plays or shots that your next opponent has statistically struggled that you can attempt to make use of. But personally, I feel it should be entirely up to the player to play how he likes during the match, without help.

It will mean we will have smarter players and thus more likely better coaches in the future (well, this is probably bullshit but logically it makes sense). I don't see how bringing up players that are allowed to be coached during change over will be beneficial to the future, because eventually we will get to the point where we will have players with great technique and amazingly fit but they won't have that much of a clue what to do apart from what they have been told by their coach, what they have been drilled and drilled to do during practice.

Sure, we will always have players who are naturally gifted and can read the game better than anyone else but those are rare.

[djarvik]

But once again, in terms of game play. Will it improve or not with coaching? You are not answering that.

Coaching is basically going on now. It WAY MORE then a simple "telling players things between matches" as you put. There is an analyzation process, a game plan, a back up plan - all of it already there. Even when a player doesn't have a coach, he has a coach, he is self-coached. He is the one developing the strategy and game plans.

So what we have now, is basically players attempting to recall these memories at the right times. They fail a lot, or fail to see the moment of that change that is needed. So they are Drilled now as you say, problem is the execution.

So what on court coaching will do, is similar to an energy drink, it will basically provide an instant feedback to the player. The player is still very much involved and in control, but now with a boost. Sure, there will be a few robotic ones, maybe even a great ones, that strictly follow the plan put in front of them every few games. But such players wont be successful. Coach is merrily give you a guideline, a general tactic.

For example, pointing out to a player that although his opponents forehand is a better side, he seems to be missing a lot when going down the line or changing directions, TODAY. That player goes out and makes and adjustment, he attempts to get into a cross rally, forehand to forehand, but instead of a normal recovery, he is now staying a bit to the right, "inviting" his opponent to go down the line. Ordinarily, this player would not react and come up with this startegy on his own, and if he did - it would be way later. That also triggers the opponents coach to respond, so he will tell his player to attempt and hit to his opponent backhand early and safer, as to avoid the cross rally and open up the court. Or even to approach the net on a short drop down the line.

There is no end to it. As far as the pure game play and excitement, I think there is something to it. I think it will likely not change a lot of dynamic in the ranking, but it will increase the quality of the match.

[TomBs]

Interesting discussion.

You can actually see if it makes a change or not, if you look at Davis Cup matches, where there is a coach on-court. I've never really looked into the effects of them though, it seems to be more of a help mental than tactical really.

I see where you're coming from Al, I'm undecided for now though.

[Vieira151]

But once again, in terms of game play. Will it improve or not with coaching? You are not answering that.

Coaching is basically going on now. It WAY MORE then a simple "telling players things between matches" as you put. There is an analyzation process, a game plan, a back up plan - all of it already there. Even when a player doesn't have a coach, he has a coach, he is self-coached. He is the one developing the strategy and game plans.

So what we have now, is basically players attempting to recall these memories at the right times. They fail a lot, or fail to see the moment of that change that is needed. So they are Drilled now as you say, problem is the execution.

So what on court coaching will do, is similar to an energy drink, it will basically provide an instant feedback to the player. The player is still very much involved and in control, but now with a boost. Sure, there will be a few robotic ones, maybe even a great ones, that strictly follow the plan put in front of them every few games. But such players wont be successful. Coach is merrily give you a guideline, a general tactic.

For example, pointing out to a player that although his opponents forehand is a better side, he seems to be missing a lot when going down the line or changing directions, TODAY. That player goes out and makes and adjustment, he attempts to get into a cross rally, forehand to forehand, but instead of a normal recovery, he is now staying a bit to the right, "inviting" his opponent to go down the line. Ordinarily, this player would not react and come up with this startegy on his own, and if he did - it would be way later. That also triggers the opponents coach to respond, so he will tell his player to attempt and hit to his opponent backhand early and safer, as to avoid the cross rally and open up the court. Or even to approach the net on a short drop down the line.

There is no end to it. As far as the pure game play and excitement, I think there is something to it. I think it will likely not change a lot of dynamic in the ranking, but it will increase the quality of the match.

I dunno. I get the feeling that matches would be a little more predicable and it wouldn't change all that much in terms of the match dynamics. I think as Tombs said, it will be mostly mental help the coaches will give. For example, it would greatly help Murray but Federer less so.

I guess they could do a test to see how it goes, but I honestly feel it won't help much. I mean, it hasn't helped much on the WTA has it?

[Corbon]

Well, besides pitting two athletes against each other, tennis and boxing are nothing alike. Objective, time frame, physical and psychical stress and last but not least health risk. "Watch out for his right cross" has a more important meaning than "watch out for his long line forehand", besides giving a psychological boost it also serves to protect the boxer and without protection a boxer is meat. The worst thing that can happen to you in a tennis match is getting double bageled.

But once again, in terms of game play. Will it improve or not with coaching? You are not answering that.

You can't tell without profiling. Some players (probably the more experienced ones) will benefit more from it, some won't. Doesn't necessarily translate into better tennis, because in order for a great match to happen, it takes two equally well skilled players.

[Corbon]

Interesting discussion.

You can actually see if it makes a change or not, if you look at Davis Cup matches, where there is a coach on-court. I've never really looked into the effects of them though, it seems to be more of a help mental than tactical really.

I see where you're coming from Al, I'm undecided for now though.

I don't recall Davis Cup matches being of higher quality in general. Some time ago there was some excitement about having no tie-breaks, which lead to endless games like Becker McEnroe in 1987 (and Mac being completely exhausted in the last two sets). Now, the remaining exciting part is playing for "your" country, which has become sort of a joke when you look at players like Djokovic playing "for" Serbia, while otherwise living the high life in a tax haven. National identity? **** that give, me the money.

[djarvik]

Well, besides pitting two athletes against each other, tennis and boxing are nothing alike. Objective, time frame, physical and psychical stress and last but not least health risk. "Watch out for his right cross" has a more important meaning than "watch out for his long line forehand", besides giving a psychological boost it also serves to protect the boxer and without protection a boxer is meat. The worst thing that can happen to you in a tennis match is getting double bageled.

But once again, in terms of game play. Will it improve or not with coaching? You are not answering that.

You can't tell without profiling. Some players (probably the more experienced ones) will benefit more from it, some won't. Doesn't necessarily translate into better tennis, because in order for a great match to happen, it takes two equally well skilled players.

I beg to differ. They are VERY alike, with exceptions of the full on contact. You got to look past the fact boxing has no fuzzy yellow ball. Strategy, footwork, different shots as strengths, defense, offense and so on. They are more alike then different really.

What coach in boxing is saying is not purely health related as you concur. Yes, some decisions are made to protect the player, as in throw the towel, but most other coach advices and decisions are aimed at performance, or rather better performance and recognition, and instant feedback.

Tennis is very much the same, up to the point where you play the actual match. In fact, part of the training process is basically provide instant feedback to the player as he hits, as he plays. This is the core and the best way to more quality shots, play, performance. It's hard to argue against it.

What I am saying is that if the coaches would be allowed to play a role, even the same role as WTA now, once a set, in my eyes this will improve the performance. Be it mental, strategic, technical or any other way. This will result in a better quality matches and more viewers, participants. Popularity of the sport is a must, this IS what the sports are all about.

To me, a LARGE percentage of people out there, who are less familiar with tennis, view it as a sport of very little strategy and depth, and basically saying "I get bored of watching that ball fly left to right to left". This is where coaching can help. Outfitting a coach with the microphone and letting him lose can increase the entertainment value tremendously! Not only it will give more insight into the sport of tennis, into individuality of players, characters, it will also educate the newcomers to the sport about the tennis, while providing a "show" quality to them.

Most relationship in tennis between coaches and players are different, some character clashes, some are more subordinate, some like to be in charge, some use coaches as punching begs, yet others as a shoulder to cry on. All this is VERY interesting and will breath a soul into what appears to others a soulless game of back and forth.

Are the Davis cup matches better? I think so. But it is not a fair compassing to the regular tour matches, first, because there is no prize money, not all players participate, second, because a Davis cup coach is not that players regular coach, that knows how to approach the player better. Even then, Davis cup has some of the tremendous 5 set match upsets and a lot of excitement in the game-play. When it comes to the "idea" of the Davis cup - I hate it.

[Corbon]

Strategy, footwork, different shots as strengths, defense, offense

All these factors play a very important part in just about any team sport. Volleyball, Football, American Football, Hockey. Hell, add Curling to the list.


I actually like the basic idea of the Davis/Fed Cup. Competitive matches between two countries (as opposed to players who only represent themselves) with no money involved.

But it will quickly turn into a farce when...

...a player like Serena bitches about the rules of having to take part into the Fed Cup in order to get a place in the Olympics (otherwise she wouldn't have played and she steamrolled through her 4 singles matches anyway) and the US being presented by players like Oudin and Lepchenko.

...a player like Sharapova being "officially" part of the Russian team and celebrating with them together but playing in less than one tie per year.

...players like Jankovic and Ivanovic not getting along and not playing a tie together (though they did this year).

About the tax havens, Boris Becker moved to Monaco at a very young age and effectively skipped mandatory military training but in Davis Cup matches he was fighting his ass off; 38-3 in singles including steamrolls over Wilander (on clay, in Sweden) and Edberg and the aforementioned McEnroe match. All is forgiven.