Fritz no fan of ATP's 'dumb' off-court coaching rule
 
American Taylor Fritz bashed the ATP Tour's trial of off-court coaching on Wednesday, saying that allowing players to receive instructions during a match was a "dumb rule" that went against the concept of tennis being an individual sport.
 
[…]
 
"I haven't talked to Mike (Russell) and he hasn't talked to me one time since the coaching has become a thing. It's a dumb rule," the world number 13 told reporters.
 
"Why are we making it not an individual sport? A huge part of tennis is, in my mind, like as tennis is as much mental as it is physical, and a big part of it is you need to be figuring it out on the court for yourself.
 
"I think it's ridiculous that you can be mentally not there, not good analytically, not good at kind of working through things and coming up with strategies, and you can have someone tell you what to do. I hate it."
 
Kyrgios has also come out against the rule, saying in June that the beauty of the sport was being taken away by the new rule, which permits an individual to coach a player both verbally and non-verbally from a designated seat.
 

(Off-Court) Coaching Comes Out of the Shadows: Tennis loses a distinction, but gains replenished integrity
 
[…]
 
There are prominent dissenters, though. Tennis Channel analyst Jim Courier, a former world No. 1, wrote in a text message: “I consider myself a progressive but do not support this initiative. How many tennis fans have been saying for years how much more they enjoy WTA tour matches (where coaching has long been allowed) compared to the Slams where coaching is not allowed? It is not essential to the game and is one of the things that differentiates tennis…[you] figure it out yourself.”
 
 
[…]
 
One of the most powerful arguments against allowing coaching is the advantage it gives to players, like the major stars, who can afford to hire top coaching talent.

Other players, including Wimbledon finalist Nick Kyrgios have raised equity concerns about the new roles, pointing out that some players may not have the resources to pay for a coach to guide them through the game.
 
“What happens if a high profile player versus a low ranked player who doesn’t have or afford a coach?” Kyrgios tweeted.  
 
Kyrgios, who travels without a coach and is praised for having one of the highest tennis IQs on tour, has little to benefit from the rule.

We are proud that our sport requires its athletes to coach themselves during the heat of their matches.
 
Players must make adjustments and think through their difficulties without outside coaching. This requires greater on-court intelligence and mental strength, qualities that have long been trademarks of its greatest champions.
 
Young Roger Federer won three Grand Slams in 2004 without a coach.
 
Talented players like Tomas Berdych often suffer meltdowns late in big matches. Why should he receive extra support to reinforce his strategy and find confidence in his mental game?
 
If tennis continues to ignore this rule, what’s to stop it from becoming like boxing or any other team sport? Should it sacrifice artistry and intelligence for sabermetrics and therapists?
 
Do we open the aisles for coaches to march down to the sidelines with iPads, clipboards, towels and encouraging relaxation tips from Zen philosophers?
 
Undoubtedly, there would be another coach in the video room, studying and directing the adjustments that are relayed back to the player.
 
If the wall comes down, men’s tennis will lose some of its connection to prior generations of great champions. It could prove as disastrous as dyeing red clay in Madrid.

Allowing coaching during matches is the wrong move but the negative impacts will take time to materialise
 
[…]
 
once the competitive element of tennis has begun then it’s a completely even playing field in terms of support. Novak Djokovic is no different to Luca Tomasetto from Italy (who is currently ranked number 1000 in the world).
 
But if the rule change does become permanent then both players can have a coach, so what’s the difference I hear you say? Why is that unfair?
 
It’s unfair because there’s coaching and then there’s ‘coaching’.
 
Firstly, do you think that Luca Tomasetto can afford to pay for Grand Slam winner Goran Ivanisevic to sit on the sidelines after doing hours of pre-match analysis on his opponent to then pass on nuggets of information, calling on his experience of winning Wimbledon, about where Novak’s opponent is most likely to hit his serve when break point down? No Tomasetto can’t afford it, but Djokovic can.
 
Secondly, it won’t just stop at that. As time goes on you’ll see someone new on Carlos Alacaraz’s support team tapping away on a handheld screen during the points as they analyse the live footage from the match and receive real time statistics on the shot selection of his opponent to then pass on to the coach to then pass on in the form of advice to their player.
 
Then you’ll notice that Jannik Sinner has a different coach for matches than he does for practise as a whole new industry for ‘match specialists’ evolves where tennis coach consultants who only focus on how to improve a player’s performance during a match become available, at a hefty price.
 
Currently the richest and best players already have an advantage as they can afford the support of a much larger team of experts to help craft their game and analyse their next opponents before every match with information being passed to them right up to the start of the match.
 
But what makes tennis so enjoyable to watch and fair to compete at is that once the match starts, it’s down to the player to use not only their physical assets to overcome their opponent but also their mental skills.

‘We Lost That Fight’ – Roger Federer’s Dejected Ex-coach Reveals Disappointment on One ‘Modern’ Rule Backed by Peer Patrick Mouratoglou He Absolutely Hates

Ljubičić recently spoke about the one thing he thinks has been damaging the beautiful game of tennis. The former world No. 3 player revealed that on-court coaching has been the most stressful part of the sport and expressed his disappointment with the ‘modern’ rule in coaching that is backed by his peer, Patrick Mouratoglou.

the Croatian tennis coach was asked whether he was in favor of in-game coaching or not. Ljubičić answered by saying that he is completely against the notion. In revealing, he also defied his peer, Patrick Mouratoglou’s ideas as he openly supports on-court coaching. Ljubičić said that it damages the game immensely. He added, “I think it just takes away so much from what we were special for and you know, the pressures and distress that players have to find a way to go through themselves.”

The former tennis player went on to say that he thinks coaching is a terrible idea for the sport. But he also said, “I guess you know, modern times come with modern ideas and I’m afraid looks like we lost that fight. “

The stunning financial reality of pro tennis

Coaching, training and travel are all exorbitantly expensive. Combine that with small purses at lower-level events and a lack of sponsorship opportunities, and it produces a persistent financial strain. It also sets up an unlevel playing field: While the big-name players are traveling with sizable teams, the lower-ranked ones sometimes don't even take a coach with them to events. It's even more difficult to win without that support, creating an ever-widening gap between those at the top and everyone else.

"The most common struggle for anyone ranked outside of the top 100 is financial, and the stress it causes," Vasek Pospisil, a 2014 Wimbledon men's doubles champion, said. "They're trying to cover travel expenses and needing to make decisions about where to cut costs, and then not being able to travel [to events] the way they would like to. ... And it's a snowball effect, it makes it even harder for the lower-ranked guys to break through because they just have less resources."

[…]

Loeb has won 10 titles on the ITF Tour during her career, with most, including the event in Malibu, coming at the $25,000 level. But she said that distinction is often misleading.

"People think if you win a $25,000 tournament, that's what you get, but I'm like, 'The joke is on you,'" Loeb said. "[That amount] is split up amongst everybody, plus taxes, plus expenses, so most of the time you're losing money at those tournaments, even if you win, unless you're staying at someone's house and not traveling with a coach."

Like Pannu, Loeb frequently travels alone, meaning she is a one-woman operation, accountable for not only her play on the court, but all of the other logistics. That typically includes booking practice courts, as well as transportation to and from the venue, and finding and preparing quality food to ensure peak athletic performance.