Sideshows and circus acts: why pro tennis should say no to on-court coaching

Now that the Hawk-Eye instant reply has been deemed a rousing success by promoters, players and fans alike, tennis has turned its attention to the prospect of on-court coaching. In the January/February 2007 issue of TENNIS Magazine, Brad Gilbert, former coach of Andre Agassi and current mentor to rising British star Andy Murray, gives three reasons why coaching should become a regular part of the pro game. Gilbert argues that coaching will (1) put an end to cheating, (2) give players their money’s worth, and (3) enhance the “show” by letting fans listen-in on what coaches are saying to their charges.

I believe that coach Gilbert’s and others’ arguments put forth in favor of on-court coaching are misguided and, should they be adopted, may lead the pro game down a slippery slope toward traveling theater.

Let me address Gilbert’s first point, that on-court coaching will put an end to cheating. Should coaching be limited to a once-per-set conference, as he proposes, that will merely allow the coach to transmit verbally what he or she might otherwise share via gestures and other non-verbal signals. Why would the covert tactics disappear, simply because the coach is given an opportunity to talk with his player face to face once a set? The monitoring of coaches would still be necessary, as the temptation to “cheat” would still exist. To truly eliminate the cheating Gilbert suggests is rampant and that goes unpunished today, coaches would need to be relegated to viewing matches on a monitor from a room outside the court.

Gilbert’s second point, that allowing coaching will finally let players get their money’s worth, is interesting. Presumably, this follows logically because players will receive their coach’s help when it is most needed and most valuable — during the match. While this argument seems logical on the surface, it completely overlooks a simple economic reality. The most successful players also have the largest bank accounts, and would therefore be able to afford the most astute coaches, while those struggling to make it on the tour or to climb up the ranks would be facing not only a higher-ranked opponent but also one who has the best help money can buy. Talk about stacking the deck! This basic inequity all but guarantees that the highest ranked players will receive the best coaching. It is easy to see how the advent of on-court coaching might have the effect of promoting the status quo and widening the gap between the haves and have-nots.

The last of Gilbert’s arguments, that on-court coaching will make the game more compelling and entertaining, is certainly partly true. One cannot deny the entertainment value of hearing a coach tell a player to stop going wide to the forehand and start using his head for something other than a hat rack. Who wouldn’t want to hear the advice Jimmy Connors is giving to Andy Roddick as Roger Federer is taking him apart? It would certainly be entertaining. It would be even more entertaining if we were privy to the on-court “coachings” of John McEnroe, as his charge went head to head against Roddick and old rival, Connors. But would it be compelling or a mere novelty? Personally, I would rather the players figure out on their own how to turn their fortunes around.

Hasn’t it occurred to anyone that — Gilbert’s once-per-set conference notwithstanding — pro tennis might soon give in to the market forces that would demand the co-branding of big-name former pros? We could easily see the rise of “personalities” assuming the on-court duties to maximize tennis’ entertainment value while the day-to-day coaching is handled by someone of lesser or more modest celebrity, but greater substance. Think of the possibilities: Guillermo Vilas “coaching” Rafael Nadal. McEnroe and Roger Federer. And what could be better than an Ilie Nastase–Marat Safin on-court partnership? Except perhaps Goran Ivanisevic–Safin! Could professionally choreographed matches be too far off? Are we ready to let tennis devolve into a sideshow, a circus act?

Unless on-court conferences are severely restricted, as Gilbert proposes, the bulk of the “coaching” would be missed by television viewers due to those ubiquitous and vital sponsor ads at every change-over. Only folks sitting in the stadium seats would benefit from this new form of entertainment. The real reason for the interest in on-court coaching is to bolster the entertainment value of the pro game for paying fans. It’s simply another opportunity to brand one more product.

Yes, play would likely improve, and some matches might become more competitive, swinging on a pendulum as each player’s coach devises a counter-plan or tweaks tactics. But let’s not fool ourselves into believing that blowouts will become a thing of the past. No amount of coaching will keep the Federer Express from flattening 90 percent of the men’s field. And no amount of on-court coaching will fix Elena Dementieva’s service woes during her match. That’s something that can only be accomplished on the practice court.

In addition, whatever happens on the pro level would likely make its way onto the junior circuit, where more harm than good can be done. Coaches already sit on the court during college matches; high school and junior matches will likely be next. As it stands, we've got far too many coaches lined up on the edges of city parks watching like hawks over their charges, with far too few linesmen, umpires and roving judges to stop the numerous rule and code violations. Cheating in the juniors is rampant; it’s the elephant in the corner that no one dares acknowledge. When coaches and parent-coaches are tasked with producing winners, abuses regularly occur. Overzealous coaching leads to cheating as well as verbal, physical and emotional abuse. Instead of acting as guides in a young player's development, too often parents and coaches step over the line. Allowing on-court coaching would simply feed this pathology.

Tennis should be in the business of promoting self-reliance, the development of problem-solving skills, and taking responsibility for on-court behaviors. Coaches need to stay on the sidelines, not become a sideshow.

AUTHOR'S NOTE: This material is copyrighted and may not be reprinted or reproduced without the express written or verbal consent of the author. Thank you for your cooperation.