Topic: Coaching during the match

[Alex]

monster, think logically... what can uncle Tony say to Rafa really ... I just don't buy it and I don't think it's that important. Im not saying it's right, I just don't think it's gonna make any big. difference. top tennis guys simply play the way they do. not much you can change about it. and the whole uncle tony thing is driving me crazy.

Nadal should learn to think on his own. 

[monstertruck]

Did you watch the AO final?
It was Toni who repeatedly encouraged Nadal to move up on both service returns and during rallies and to be more aggressive.
He's been doing this for years.
It's flagrant.
It's cheating.
It's wrong.

Nadal is by no means the only offender of this rule.

Perhaps a better question to ask is this-
Why have rules if they're not going to be enforced?

The rules set the field for play.
Without them, they might as well just run around kicking a ball with their feet towards some gapping maw instead of marshalling the awesome skills required to repeatedly, and accurately strike an object moving @ over 100 mph.  All by themselves mind you.   Not trotting around whilst the other laddies play paddycake with the big round ball, waiting for their moment of glory to take some flop for the referee.

[Alex]

ok, mr. rule king. I get your point. it's just that I somehow do not believe that Nadal would have won that match with any kind of coaching from his uncle. I'm not saying it's right. Nadal tried to be aggressive but it didn't work out. I mean, so what ... maybe they should change the rules and let players being able to be coached... I still don't think it would make any big difference...

[falcon]

Alex, lets say Rafa never knew how to work it out against Fed and they are playing this finals and Rafa is losing, looks at Toni and Toni indicates to go for the Fed backhand, isn't that enough to destroy Fed?

Another case is when the whole match is based on just one line call and the player in question is now indicated to challenge the otherwise 'defeat' finalizing call, what would the outcome be? Another grandslam for the winner while a runner up trophy for the opponent. That's a very big difference in their careers.

[Babblelot]

Alex, lets say Rafa never knew how to work it out against Fed and they are playing this finals and Rafa is losing, looks at Toni and Toni indicates to go for the Fed backhand, isn't that enough to destroy Fed?

Another case is when the whole match is based on just one line call and the player in question is now indicated to challenge the otherwise 'defeat' finalizing call, what would the outcome be? Another grandslam for the winner while a runner up trophy for the opponent. That's a very big difference in their careers.

This is why I don't get my shorts in a bunch over this topic.

Players will look to their box for support or to vent. That's natural.

The box consists of fans, and fans will shout things at their favorite players because they want to think they can influence them. That's natural.

But what they say is ridiculous. "Go to the Federer backhand!" That's ridiculous on two levels:
1. No s**t, that's what I've been doing for 3:33.
2. It seems I'm not trying to do that because he's been dictating the points. But, really, I am trying to get to his backhand.

You look at a fan for support or to vent frustration. A fan is going to say something to encourage you, like, "Vamos! Vamos!" or something ridiculous, like, "Go to the Federer backhand!"

[monstertruck]

ok, mr. rule king. I get your point. it's just that I somehow do not believe that Nadal would have won that match with any kind of coaching from his uncle. I'm not saying it's right. Nadal tried to be aggressive but it didn't work out. I mean, so what ... maybe they should change the rules and let players being able to be coached... I still don't think it would make any big difference...

That is irrelevant.

Maybe it's just me, but one of the apsects of tennis that I enjoy is that it is strictly an individual sport.  The players are on their own to sort out strategy and tactics.  To me, that most certainly makes a difference. 

[monstertruck]

Alex, lets say Rafa never knew how to work it out against Fed and they are playing this finals and Rafa is losing, looks at Toni and Toni indicates to go for the Fed backhand, isn't that enough to destroy Fed?

Another case is when the whole match is based on just one line call and the player in question is now indicated to challenge the otherwise 'defeat' finalizing call, what would the outcome be? Another grandslam for the winner while a runner up trophy for the opponent. That's a very big difference in their careers.

This is why I don't get my shorts in a bunch over this topic.

Players will look to their box for support or to vent. That's natural.

The box consists of fans, and fans will shout things at their favorite players because they want to think they can influence them. That's natural.

But what they say is ridiculous. "Go to the Federer backhand!" That's ridiculous on two levels:
1. No s**t, that's what I've been doing for 3:33.
2. It seems I'm not trying to do that because he's been dictating the points. But, really, I am trying to get to his backhand.

You look at a fan for support or to vent frustration. A fan is going to say something to encourage you, like, "Vamos! Vamos!" or something ridiculous, like, "Go to the Federer backhand!"

I'm cool with 'venting' and 'supporting', just leave the coaching out of it.

[falcon]

Alex, lets say Rafa never knew how to work it out against Fed and they are playing this finals and Rafa is losing, looks at Toni and Toni indicates to go for the Fed backhand, isn't that enough to destroy Fed?

Another case is when the whole match is based on just one line call and the player in question is now indicated to challenge the otherwise 'defeat' finalizing call, what would the outcome be? Another grandslam for the winner while a runner up trophy for the opponent. That's a very big difference in their careers.

This is why I don't get my shorts in a bunch over this topic.

Players will look to their box for support or to vent. That's natural.

The box consists of fans, and fans will shout things at their favorite players because they want to think they can influence them. That's natural.

But what they say is ridiculous. "Go to the Federer backhand!" That's ridiculous on two levels:
1. No s**t, that's what I've been doing for 3:33.
2. It seems I'm not trying to do that because he's been dictating the points. But, really, I am trying to get to his backhand.

You look at a fan for support or to vent frustration. A fan is going to say something to encourage you, like, "Vamos! Vamos!" or something ridiculous, like, "Go to the Federer backhand!"

It seems you didn't get my point....this was a hypothetical situation wherein rafa and fed have never met and we all know it here that rafa attacks only fed's backhand and he solely relies on that. He wouldn't be able to win by aiming at fed's forehand or not realising what damage his loopy shots do to fed's backhand. If such a situation did exist and rafa is losing the match, looks at toni and toni indicates him to aim at fed's backhand, he will go on to win. Of course, that has never happened.

[pawan89]

ok, mr. rule king. I get your point. it's just that I somehow do not believe that Nadal would have won that match with any kind of coaching from his uncle. I'm not saying it's right. Nadal tried to be aggressive but it didn't work out. I mean, so what ... maybe they should change the rules and let players being able to be coached... I still don't think it would make any big difference...

I think you might be slightly under-estimating the difference between winning and losing between the top players. Think about it this way, that slight coaching/encouragement could very well have been the difference between Djokovic wrapping up the final in a tidy 4 sets and what really happened, Nadal pushed through in the fourth and then broke to lead in the fifth. In a match like the AO final, you might be offended if I say that Djokovic got lucky to win that match but it would have been just as truthful of a statement about Nadal had he won that match. But of course, we don't really count luck but there are additional factors and i think coaching specifically, not just words of encouragement from a random fan, but specific things from specific people that a player turns to when he's desperate, as falcon and monster have mentioned, can very well be the difference between winning and losing.

We can play the if/then scenario as long as we want but on hindsight, you've gotta admit just how easy it was for Nadal to beat Djokovic in the final and how close he came. Or even something as simple as telling Murray to tough that 4th set out or as complex as telling Federer to stop going over the higher part of the net to Nadal's forehand and instead play the safer crosscourt to Nadal's backhand would have made a whole world of difference to the outcome of the semis and finals because there's very little separating them.

None of these matches between the top guys can ever deserve "oh i don't think ______ would have made a difference and the player who won would have won anyway" and when you have such a fine line, we have enough external factors that the players need to handle and overcome to earn their victory. Stand-side coaching should not be an un-fair advantage.

[Babblelot]

Alex, lets say Rafa never knew how to work it out against Fed and they are playing this finals and Rafa is losing, looks at Toni and Toni indicates to go for the Fed backhand, isn't that enough to destroy Fed?

Another case is when the whole match is based on just one line call and the player in question is now indicated to challenge the otherwise 'defeat' finalizing call, what would the outcome be? Another grandslam for the winner while a runner up trophy for the opponent. That's a very big difference in their careers.

This is why I don't get my shorts in a bunch over this topic.

Players will look to their box for support or to vent. That's natural.

The box consists of fans, and fans will shout things at their favorite players because they want to think they can influence them. That's natural.

But what they say is ridiculous. "Go to the Federer backhand!" That's ridiculous on two levels:
1. No s**t, that's what I've been doing for 3:33.
2. It seems I'm not trying to do that because he's been dictating the points. But, really, I am trying to get to his backhand.

You look at a fan for support or to vent frustration. A fan is going to say something to encourage you, like, "Vamos! Vamos!" or something ridiculous, like, "Go to the Federer backhand!"

It seems you didn't get my point....this was a hypothetical situation wherein rafa and fed have never met and we all know it here that rafa attacks only fed's backhand and he solely relies on that. He wouldn't be able to win by aiming at fed's forehand or not realising what damage his loopy shots do to fed's backhand. If such a situation did exist and rafa is losing the match, looks at toni and toni indicates him to aim at fed's backhand, he will go on to win. Of course, that has never happened.

OK, so they never played each other before. I still think it's much ado about nothing and you may have missed my point.

[Babblelot]

ok, mr. rule king. I get your point. it's just that I somehow do not believe that Nadal would have won that match with any kind of coaching from his uncle. I'm not saying it's right. Nadal tried to be aggressive but it didn't work out. I mean, so what ... maybe they should change the rules and let players being able to be coached... I still don't think it would make any big difference...

I think you might be slightly under-estimating the difference between winning and losing between the top players. Think about it this way, that slight coaching/encouragement could very well have been the difference between Djokovic wrapping up the final in a tidy 4 sets and what really happened, Nadal pushed through in the fourth and then broke to lead in the fifth. In a match like the AO final, you might be offended if I say that Djokovic got lucky to win that match but it would have been just as truthful of a statement about Nadal had he won that match. But of course, we don't really count luck but there are additional factors and i think coaching specifically, not just words of encouragement from a random fan, but specific things from specific people that a player turns to when he's desperate, as falcon and monster have mentioned, can very well be the difference between winning and losing.

We can play the if/then scenario as long as we want but on hindsight, you've gotta admit just how easy it was for Nadal to beat Djokovic in the final and how close he came. Or even something as simple as telling Murray to tough that 4th set out or as complex as telling Federer to stop going over the higher part of the net to Nadal's forehand and instead play the safer crosscourt to Nadal's backhand would have made a whole world of difference to the outcome of the semis and finals because there's very little separating them.

None of these matches between the top guys can ever deserve "oh i don't think ______ would have made a difference and the player who won would have won anyway" and when you have such a fine line, we have enough external factors that the players need to handle and overcome to earn their victory. Stand-side coaching should not be an un-fair advantage.

And then again, everything you said is speculation.

I'll speculate that this is hooey.

[Babblelot]

Anyone watch the WTA tour? They actually allow coaching during most of their tournaments.

Effective? Are these girls getting that little bit of information that will make the difference between winning and losing?

Doesn't look to be the case to me.

[Babblelot]

In Henin's quarterfinal match against Nadia Petrova, Rodriguez was shown on television motioning a toss, and then moving his other hand as if to say, "move your feet," when Henin prepared to return the ball. On the next point, Petrova tossed the ball for a slice serve while Henin moved to her right to cut off the ball.

OK, this is some real inside tennis stuff that does make me reconsider. 

[Babblelot]

Interesting take from Jon Wertheim. This is really the way I look at the Toni-Rafa in-match relationship. A lot different from that of Carlos and Justine.

But some of your responses were way out of proportion. Nadal's U.S. Open title is tainted because his uncle may or may not have encouraged him "keep fighting," "stay focused" or even "serve to the body"? Come on. Even calling it "cheating" is a bit harsh by my reckoning. Cheating is taking banned drugs that enhance performance. Cheating is a college team paying its athletes. Cheating is using banned equipment. What Nadal does is akin to a soccer player diving, an NBA player flopping or a baseball player celebrating a catch on a ball he knows he trapped. It's gamesmanship, morally shaky to be sure, but a misdemeanor rather than a felony. In a perfect world, Nadal doesn't look for coaching and his uncle doesn't provide it. But I'm hard-pressed to conjure much more outrage than that.

Read more: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2010/writers/jon_wertheim/09/29/mailbag/index.html#ixzz1mKQKEkyK

[Babblelot]

Think about it this way, that slight coaching/encouragement could very well have been the difference between Djokovic wrapping up the final in a tidy 4 sets and what really happened...

I'd much rather see what really happened than watch a tidy 4 setter.

This guy here argues coaching enhances the sport for the spectator, not detracts from it. He says (at 1:35) that what otherwise would have been easy straight set matches turned to compelling matches. Says coaching improves the quality of matches.

http://video.filestube.com/watch,2e93bb14b368beee03e9/WTA-TENNIS-On-Court-Coaching-Featuring-Martina-Hingis.html

If it makes for better matches, I can live with allowing coaching. If nothing's done, i.e., the rule isn't enforced, I'm good with that, too. I really don't care that they don't enforce this rule. 

[Babblelot]

Interesting. Someone suggested that Dinara Safina fell apart in major finals because she was a product of on-court coaching. It sounds good, but she got through the other 6 matches easily. I think in Dirnara's case, probably having someone there was more psychological than Xs and Os.

[Alex]

guys, all I'm saying is that Nole and Nadal know each other very well and there is ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that uncle tony can do during the match. what can he advise rafa to do? go to nole BH (Nole BH too strong), go to his FH (still too strong), go more to the net ....mmm, not a good idea as Nole moves like a cat etc.

Yes, in general I'm against coaching...  all I'm saying is that with top guys right now it simply does not matter as they are simply very familiar with one another.

[monstertruck]

Anyone watch the WTA tour? They actually allow coaching during most of their tournaments.

Effective? Are these girls getting that little bit of information that will make the difference between winning and losing?

Doesn't look to be the case to me.

I refuse to admit that I watch WTA matches.

As you stated earlier, your position is that coaching enhances the game.
That doesn't seem to be the case in this post.
Which way is it Babs???

[Babblelot]

Anyone watch the WTA tour? They actually allow coaching during most of their tournaments.

Effective? Are these girls getting that little bit of information that will make the difference between winning and losing?

Doesn't look to be the case to me.

I refuse to admit that I watch WTA matches.

As you stated earlier, your position is that coaching enhances the game.
That doesn't seem to be the case in this post.
Which way is it Babs???

To me, it doesn't look that constructive at times. But from watching that video I linked, I can see that it may be. If the guy says it does affect the WTA matches, in a way that improves the quality of the match, that cannot be a bad thing.

I guess there we (collectively) are of two minds:

1. Most people don't want coaching because they believe that in this individual sport, the player should be an island and problem solve. Can't think of another individual sport that doesn't have in-match/in-play coaching.

2. Then there are those like me, who would rather see a match of higher quality. If that can be done via coaching, then I would be OK with a rule change allowing for in-match coaching.

Ultimately, the player still has to do the problem solving regardless of how much he was coached before the match or during. Both players will be making adjustments to what the other is doing. For instance, in the case of Petrova and Henin, Petrova will have to problem solve now that Henin has taken the serve out wide away, and so on...

[falcon]

If both parties are indulging in on-court coaching then both players are at an even level of sorts. If only one player does it, then its cheating and that's what I hate to see.