On Court Coaching

Now that I got my little sermon on unions out of the way . . .

On court coaching. It's a large subject with diverse angles to view it from.

The First Angle: Tradition

I mentioned here that on-court coaching goes against the nature of the tennis game. Most sports were dreamed up by athletes. Tennis was invented in the Middle Ages by the warrior class. In fact, the terminology is tongue-in-cheek. The "courtiers" deliver their "strokes" in a game of strategy (the science of art = military science) where "love" is valued at nothing. If you know something about the multilateral game of chess that was life at the court of a medieval king, you get the joke. Because it was just another battlefield, with a different kind of "stroke" to deliver the enemy.

The game was intended to be one of self-reliance. It was a battle of wits and stamina and perseverance. Like the knight errant, you were basically alone out there. You stayed out there slugging it out all day, past the point of exhaustion. You were done for if you couldn't think fast on your feet and react to the changing situation without orders/coaching from headquarters. And usually the winner was the more determined combatant -- the one who would not give up, the one still charged up and determined to win at the end of the day. At some point the enemy became dismayed at the realization that he would never give in and fled.

So, tennis is as much a test of wits and mental toughness as a test of stamina and skill. On court coaching waters it down. I'm not a traditionalist, but this is one place at which I balk on departing from tradition. All sports are unique, but tennis is more unique than most for this reason. Why make it like all the others?

The Second Angle: What Good is On Court Tennis Coaching?

This kind of coaching isn't like coaching in football, where the defense gets coaching on the sidelines while the offense in on the field. It isn't like basketball, where the coach can yell instructions from the sidelines continuously. He or she can pull a player out for coaching on the bench and then send that player back into the game.

You can't do that in tennis.

This is strictly timeout coaching. Not even that, because you can't call time out for it.

Timeout coaching is the least effective. I have coached basketball and track as well as tennis. So, I can tell you that, in any sport, coaching during a timeout in the heat of battle often does little good. At such a moment the players are zhombies who can hardly focus. Notice the blank looks they give a coach in the huddle. Those players turn right around and go back out there all in a blur, because the coach rattled off ten things at them, ten things that never really sunk in, ten things they've completely forgotten by the time play resumes.

Yes, at the professional level in sports like basketball, you can expect the players to be able to focus enough to absorb and follow orders about a play they're supposed to run immediately upon re-entering the game. But that's about all. That coaching can't deliver them any long-term strategy to execute.

Yes, there are times when I would have killed for a chance to clue-in a player or doubles team on something or for a chance to talk to them and fire them up with a verbal kick in the butt. In fact, one such moment I'll never forget. It was the moment I noticed how a rival team was sweeping the doubles on us -- by running The Switch Trick relentlessly. Once I caught on to the play that was being run, I could hardly wait for the end of the set to tell my Number One Doubles team to stop switching for lobs.

That coaching helped. It won the match and the meet.

But times when coaching can help are rare. Notice that this advice was one simple and definite thing to tell them: "Don't switch for lobs. I'll explain why tomorrow. Okay?" That they could absorb and execute.

But, if you're going to allow coaching, why force a coach to wait till the end of a set? I had to stand there and watch my kids lose three or four more games before I could tell them to stop switching for the lobs. That's ridiculous. It makes no sense and defeats the purpose of the rule. Furthermore, my players had no idea what was being done to them, so why should they have ASKED for me to come and advise them? If you're going to allow coaching, allow the coach to approach the player with advice whether she asks for it or not.

What few people realize (and few coaches admit) is that coaching in tennis usually does more harm than good. What CAN you tell a player in 30 seconds that won't just confuse and WILL do some good?

A smart coach avoids that. I approach a chance to coach thinking, "Don't say this" and "Don't say that. It will just confuse them." A smart coach says little during coaching timeouts except things designed to evoke a useful emotional response -- for confidence, greater effort, or whatever. For example, there are times when I've deliberately said something that would smart to fire players up. You know, like "Quit foolin' around and stinkin' it up out out there." Works like a charm. Suddenly they're ferocious and playing out of their minds.

Therefore, a smart coach has a short list of things to say for the various pychological situations that arise in a match. For example, if my players just lost the first set, I tell them to blow it off and go back out there quickly, raring to start the second as if THEY were the winners of the first set. I say, "They'll let down a bit now, so get these first two games and you've got a whole new match." My players might as well go out there with a tape-recording of me saying that. It's more like a mantra than coaching.

Sorry, but that's the way to coach. Nothing too grand, eh?

But why should PROFESSIONAL tennis players need a coach to keep them bucked up and intense? And why shouldn't tennis test a PROFESSIONAL player's ability to think for herself?

Frankly, I think some of the push for coaching comes from coaches (and parents?) who want to be more visible and catch some limelight.