Thoughts on coaching in-between points?

Just over 2 years ago, the rules changed to allow "coaching" in between points.

Now, I've watched a fair few pro matches, and it doesn't look like it's had a detrimental impact on the gameplay, speed or anything else.

I was playing in a local league match last night (if you had to generalise it, it's the most "friendly" league I play in, with players having played in it for many years, and typically everyone gets on with each other).

For anyone who doesn't know, a local league match in the UK is 3 vs 3 (everyone plays everyone), with 1 doubles at the end.

Anyway, one of their players is extremely unorthodox, with short pips (almost hard bat like) on the backhand, and a very very spinny forehand rubber.

He doesn't attack, but he mixes up his forehand and backhand really well, which generally catches people off guard (especially those who can't hit a decent backhand).

Now, there are very few people who are genuinely looking to improve their game in this league - Most are happy playing the same way they have for the past 20/30/40 years, and just carry on playing for the enjoyment/competitive side.

But my 2 team mates are looking to improve where possible, and I would make comments like "go through the ball" with a shadow action, whilst sitting on the side.

Or it might be "get over the ball", you get the idea.

This would happen (generally), after they'd missed a shot, and the opponent was going to pick the ball up - i.e, not taking any time at all.

Likewise, I'd have a very brief (30 second) chat in between sets to go over some tactics - This is a pretty alien concept to most of the players in this league, who simply don't have anyone that could do that for them.

Anyway, one of their guys got pretty annoyed by this (he was playing, and I was occasionally giving his opponent who was my teammate, some advice when he missed), and said I shouldn't be offering any advice at all as it was against the rules.

I obviously knew it wasn't, but wasn't going to aggravate the situation in what was supposed to be a relatively friendly affair.

So, the question to you folk (especially those who may play in leagues, but also to our brothers from America and beyond)......

Now the rule is in place, and doesn't seem to cause delays - What are your thoughts on it?

To add some context behind why I do it with weaker teammates, it's so that they can learn on the spot, and improve their game. It's all well and good giving the advice after the game, but by that point you might not play them again all year.

So the player has a chance to improve there and then.

That's my feeling anyway - What's yours?

How do you mean?

langel said:

Well, if it is a team competition, then anyone authorised to be in the playing area may give advices the way you describe.
But on individual competition the "adviser" should introduce himself to the umpire.
Frankly speaking we don't use the freedom of these rules here and we stick to giving advices the old way. And I personally think that its better for the discipline and concentration of the players. As a coach you don't have to sit on his head. Live streaming advices may hurt rather than help no matter how good they are. There is a time for that and its called coached training.
But all this is just my personal opinion.

Click to expand...

I guess there are so many ways people can interpret what I've said, it's very hard to explain it exactly like it was (along with the context).

To add a bit more context to it.

• I'm a much better player than my team mates (it sounds big headed, it's not supposed to be, but it's an attempt to explain that I can help them out, where they wouldn't be able to help my, or others).

• The player they were playing against who had a really unusual style, with unusual rubbers is not someone you can train for - I mean, sure, as long as you have good fundamentals, you'll be fine, but the tactics of playing someone like that are very different.

• "Coaching" is probably the wrong word for it - It might just be a couple of words after one of points in the entire set - Nothing that is particularly distracting, but something to give my teammate a chance to think about how he is playing, and ultimately improve his game there and then.

• I wouldn't expect people to be able to suddenly do things they couldn't previously (like a monster top spin loop or anything) - Most of the comments are fine adjustments (of which, there will likely be 2 or 3 over 5 sets).

The last point would be how far removed this setting/match is from a tournament or pro league.

There are no official umpires or playing areas (we score our own matches, alternating between teams who is umpiring).

I can see why he got annoyed, and I guess the only people who will really understand (especially given the nature of the UK personality/population), are other UK league players!

But thought it would be a good talking point to see what other countries would also think.

Tennis needs to unify their rules.

You can coach on the WTA, but not at Grand Slams.

No need to make it complicated - Either allow it or dont.

Sounds very similar to the UK set up.

Also, for anyone wondering (and it would be good to see if this is universal), the age groups go......

Cadet (14-16)
Junior (16-18)
Senior (18-40)
Veteran (40+)

But in the local league, all ages will play each other.

I definitely think the "active coaching" annoys the older generation more.

1. They aren't used to it.
2. They probably do see it as cheating in their own way - But ultimately the rules change and you've got to roll with it!