On-Court Coaching Affects Tennis Players

In the match between Gauff and Navarro during Wimbledon in July, I’m sure you noticed that Coco was not on the same page with her coaching staff. Therefore, I thought this is a good opportunity to share my opinion on whether on-court coaching can benefit professional players or not.

Coaching

Let me start off by talking about coaching in general. The worse a player is, the more coaching is required. The better the player is, the less coaching is required. If we're talking about rec-level or even junior-level players, they can benefit greatly from coaching because they’re simply going to make a lot of mistakes, whether these are tactical, technical, or mental. Coaches are crucial in the process of developing a player.

At the pro level, coaching is not as encompassing across all aspects of player development, simply because the players are already developed. However, it’s crucial because players are looking to get that extra 1 to 5% out of their game.

Now, can players succeed without coaching? They absolutely can. There have been many examples of players who have done well without a coach. For example, Danielle Collins won Miami and Charleston back-to-back without a coach. If you think about it, it makes a lot of sense. Just picture Sinner and Alcaraz arriving at Wimbledon without a coach. Would they be able to reach the semifinals? I think they would, but how about winning the title and becoming Wimbledon champion? Well, this is where coaching can be extremely beneficial.

Specific Reasons

On the Served podcast, Andy Roddick dropped some golden nuggets. He talked about Tarik Benhabilès being one of his most influential coaches because Benhabilès coached Roddick when he was very young. Roddick credits him with being able to break into the top 10. However, as Roddick matured as a player and became more experienced, he didn’t require as much coaching. He still hired coaches though because he was looking for that extra 1 to 5%.

For example, Roddick hired Jimmy Connors as a coach for one specific reason. When Roddick was playing the first round at Arthur Ashe Stadium under the lights at the US Open, Connors knew exactly what Roddick was feeling walking out there. Roddick hired him for those few matches where Connors’ experience and advice were invaluable, like knowing when to use the crowd, when to stay silent, and when to bring them in. This type of coaching is what a player might need at that level—not someone to tell them what they already know.

Roger Federer

Roger Federer had many throughout his career, but one in particular that was interesting to me was Ivan Ljubičić. Ljubičić not only beat Federer when he was an active player on tour, but he also competed against Federer’s top competitors, making him a perfect fit for Roger.

A lot of you remember the 2017 Australian Open final between Federer and Nadal. There have been so many videos on YouTube about how Federer changed his backhand in that match when he was down a break in the fifth set and started hitting one backhand winner after another.

In the Functional Tennis podcast, Fabio asked Ljubičić whether he convinced Roger to change his backhand. Ljubičić clarified that he didn’t change Federer’s backhand, but maybe influenced how he used it. Federer decided to take the ball early and hit his backhand flat, and it worked so well in that match that he kept doing it for months and years afterward.

The thing is, coaching at that level isn’t about saying, "Roger, hit your backhand like this." It’s more about offering advice that can give a player confidence in their decisions. History shows that the best players receive their coaching off the court. We didn’t see players looking up to their box much back in the day, but things have changed. Players now communicate a lot more with their coaching staff during matches, and some even seem dependent on it.

When things aren’t going well, players helplessly look up to their coaching staff for advice. But here’s the thing: tennis is an individual sport. You’re out there on your own, with nowhere to hide. Coaching works in other sports because it’s a team effort, and the coach is organizing players in different positions. There are also timeouts in team sports where a coach can gather the players and strategize. The closest equivalent in tennis is the Davis Cup, where the coach selects players and sits on the bench to talk to them.

Outside of team competitions like the Davis Cup, professional tennis is an individual sport. Coaching wasn’t allowed during matches in the past, but it still happened discreetly, like coaches throwing signals or meeting during bathroom breaks. The difference now is that coaching is allowed, but in my opinion, most players aren’t benefiting much from the current coaching system.

Timing

In tennis, time is of the essence. The quicker something happens, the more intuitive it becomes. This applies to technique as well as the tennis game in general. When you're playing a point at the pro level, the ball comes back so fast that there’s no time to execute tactics or make technical adjustments mid-rally. Players are relying on their intuition. However, coaches can provide some advice between points—like where to serve or how to construct a point—but they only have 20 seconds between points.

In a practice match, on-court coaching works well because there’s no time pressure. But in a real match, it’s hard to absorb the advice between points. The logistics of on-court coaching also don’t make sense. You’re only allowed to be coached when you're on the same side of the court as your coach, which can lead to awkward interactions where the coach is shouting from a distance.

Solutions

In my opinion, there are two solutions to this problem. One is to allow professional tennis to be like the Davis Cup, where the coach sits on the bench with the player. This would give the coach more time to communicate during changeovers. This approach was allowed on the WTA tour for a while but was later abandoned. During that time, coaches were allowed to come on court, but this created pressure because they were wearing microphones, and it led to some uncomfortable situations between players and coaches.

Another solution, and the one I think is best, would be to allow coaching between each set—off the court, off camera, and off mic. This would give the coach and player five minutes to strategize. Brad Gilbert, for example, talked about how, during a rain delay at the French Open final, Andre Agassi was able to speak with him, settle down, and come back to win the match after being down two sets.

In my opinion, the current system of coaches shouting from the stands isn’t improving the quality of tennis. You might see some improvement with Davis Cup-style coaching, but the best solution is to allow coaching between sets. This would give players the time to absorb information and make real adjustments. And maybe we should go back to the good old days and not allow coaching at all, letting players figure things out on their own.

Final Thoughts

There’s a lot of value in a player figuring out how to win. That’s what differentiates great champions from regular players. Great champions find a way to win even when they're playing their worst, while others lose those same matches. That’s when players benefit most from coaching.

Lastly, comparing Alcaraz and Sinner, both are still young and improving, and I think you’ll see them rely less on coaching over time. However, Alcaraz might rely a bit too much on coaching at times. He’s obviously playing amazing, having just won the French Open, but a less constant coaching style could benefit him even more.