In-match coaching

I see the USO is to run a “trial” (code for normalisation process) to allow players to receive coaching during the match.

This is a hideous idea. One of the attractions of the sport for me was that I went out head to head against another person and the winner was the better player, not that with the best tactical advice. It also undermines the level playing field concept where regardless of resources the two protagonists go out shorn of any advantages save what they possess in themselves.
I associate on court coaching with weak minded players who can’t figure it out on their own or who need moral support. The WTA did it’s players no favours by making women look weak and it wouldn’t surprise me if some of this for the men’s game comes from the levelling down attitude of some WTA operators (like Jelly-Bean King) who have pushed things like reducing the men to three-set matches to eliminate one of the equal pay objections. “See, men need it too!”.

I don’t need any more reasons to admire Federer but once again he has shown the way throughout his career. As far as I know there’s never even been a suggestion of coaching from the box.

It's an awful idea - probably to appease the scummy cheat Nadal.

It's somewhat a strange decision. Not seen players clambering for this to be brought in. Same with you BB the appeal of tennis is the mano a mano element. That the player is entirely in control of their destiny within a competitive environment. It also requires thinking and perception on the feet in real time. 

Am I adverse to coaching? Having watched many DC encounters, has having the coaches really made the difference in an outcome of a match? Not that I've seen. The real weak minded players will become too dependent on it. The better players will just get on with it. Like in any other sport that allows coaching. 

Not saying it's not right and it's not a change I'd like to see introduced, however I don't think the more inept players will start to become winning machines overnight.

Is there anything good coming from the US nowadays?

I find it a baffling notion.  When they are out there playing for themselves that's what I want to see.  I don't enjoy watching the shenanigans that go in in the DC and the Laver Cup, but at least that has the justification of a team.

In the individual sport this can only possibly help those rich enough to pay for analysis and so on.  I thought it was absurd, embarrassing, for the WTA, and the men should reject it out of hand.

Who asked for this anyway?

I don’t need any more reasons to admire Federer but once again he has shown the way throughout his career. As far as I know there’s never even been a suggestion of coaching from the box

Fed never looks at his box. He has mentioned in an interview that he never looks towards his box until the match is done.

Tenez wrote:Is there anything good coming from the US nowadays?

The shot-clock was a very good innovation done last year. The 5th set TB is another one. The Roof has managed to keep rain delays away, but players are complaining about the heat and humidity in such a massive stadium ( this can be fixed though ).

So yes.

But USTA does favour their American athletes. And last year final after the Serena (drama-queen-bit*h) incident, they are trying to allow this level of rule breakage. Not good in my opinion.

Yeah agree its USTA trying to shore up their shitty american tennis quality that has been 0 since Pete quit tennis.

naxroy wrote:Who asked for this anyway?

I have a sneaky feeling the "levelling down" crew might be behind it; bring every aspect of the mens game down to the level of the women and you skewer all the arguments against not only equal pay (that's done now anyway, dispute that and you're basically Hitler) but any and all suggestion that there is any superiority to what the men offer.

This is the way with the woke SJW brigade; they don't want tolerance they want conformance, and enthusiastic conformance at that. It must burn them to look at what real people choose has value when they get to express their preferences in a free market

https://www.wimbledondebentureholders.com/buy-wimbledon-tickets/wimbledon-centre-court-tickets

bogbrush wrote:

naxroy wrote:Who asked for this anyway?

I have a sneaky feeling the "levelling down" crew might be behind it; bring every aspect of the mens game down to the level of the women and you skewer all the arguments against not only equal pay (that's done now anyway, dispute that and you're basically Hitler) but any and all suggestion that there is any superiority to what the men offer.

This is the way with the woke SJW brigade; they don't want tolerance they want conformance, and enthusiastic conformance at that. It must burn them to look at what real people choose has value when they get to express their preferences in a free market

https://www.wimbledondebentureholders.com/buy-wimbledon-tickets/wimbledon-centre-court-tickets

I ahve always disliked the fact that USO, AO, and RG now have mixed men and women QF and SF days despite the fact that they put the schedule and fairness across both sides of the draw at risk.  I've always assumed that it is to maximise TV income.  bb's post suggests that their intention could include hiding what Wimbledon's insistence on men's and women's QF/SF on different days makes clear - that at the moment, and for many years now, punters would rather watch men than women at the big joint tournaments.

I've got no idea, and I still think maximising income is more likely, but whether or not there is a conscious attempt to 'dumb down' the men's game.  I don't think they should go anywhere near coaching during the match, or bo3 in Slams and other such 'equalising' things.  Quite apart from anything else, you reduce the inherent differentiation and value of slams.