“To coach or not to coach.” That is one of the most contentious questions in tennis right now. Within professional tennis circles, there is an ongoing debate about whether or not the rules should, for the first time, allow players to receive coaching during matches. I have taken the side of the so-called “purists,” who believe that the exclusion of outside coaching during matches exists as an integral aspect of the game. As renowned tennis columnist Bud Collins explained to NPR Morning Edition’s Steve Inskeep this past June, “One of the great virtues of tennis is the self-reliance of the player. You’re out there all alone and you’ve got to do the job.”
While Collins and Roger Federer share my opinion, I cannot help but wonder if I will feel stupid in ten years, if on-court coaching has been implemented, for having supported an archaic rule that inevitably leads to lower quality tennis. Undoubtedly, if players were allowed to have coaches on court, they would play at the top of their game more often. Talented players who have underachieved because of lack of sound strategy or consistent motivation on-court would now have a safety net. If the rules allowed coaching during changeovers, then a player like Fernando Gonzalez, who just recently became an upper echelon player after developing a stronger mental game, could possibly have reached his current level years ago. To understand the magnitude of in-game coaching, think about a football team trying to play a game without a coach telling them what to do.
The ban on coaching during matches in tennis is one example of the often-arbitrary lines drawn between improving the athletes and altering the game. Banning specific performance enhancing supplements is another example. Why is it legal for an athlete to condition themselves through training and careful dieting, but not okay to use substances that may help them reach a higher level? Or why are advances in equipment technology allowed in golf, yet allowing PGA players to take carts instead of walking is unthinkable? The decisions made by sports’ governing bodies are invaluable to preserving the sports as their founders intended, yet the difference between pervading and improving the game is not always clear. It is important to question the decisions made by these governing bodies, because they do not always get them right the first time. After all, 40 years ago, the three-point line did not exist in the NBA, and freshmen were ineligible to play varsity college basketball. So be skeptical, because they do not always get the changes right.
Leave a Reply