The debate around on-court coaching on the ATP Tour reared its head again at the US Open, when Rafael Nadal slammed the current rule as ‘stupid’, while the format adopted by the Laver Cup – which saw tennis legends Bjorn Borg and John McEnroe on the sidelines – could easily have thrusted the discussion back into the limelight.

Johanna Konta splits with coach Thomas Hogstedt

Novak Djokovic and Roger Federer famously held opposing views at Wimbledon and three of the game’s biggest stars have all offered interesting and valuable insights into the matter during 2017.

ATP rules currently stipulate: ‘Players shall not receive coaching during a tournament match. Communications of any kind, audible or visible, between a player and a coach may be construed as coaching.’



But in an ever evolving world, is that rule outdated? Or should it remain in place?


To view this video please enable JavaScript, and consider upgrading to a web browser that supports HTML5 video

Here Metro.co.uk will take a look at some of the arguments offered up in the past and at the ways such a rule could be put in place if it was to be enforced.

Nadal: It’s ‘stupid’

Nadal is not a fan of the rule (Picture: Getty)

Speaking after his win against Del Potro at the US Open – where he was forced to adapt his game to down the dangerous Argentine – Nadal pulled no punches in his assessment of the rule:

‘It’s a little bit stupid that you have a coach travelling for you, with you during the whole season and practising with you every day, and is a little bit stupid that in the most important moment, he cannot tell you anything.

‘In my opinion, will be good if – I don’t know if coach have to come on court, but would be good if the coach can talk.’

Has it worked on the WTA Tour? The WTA brought in on-court coaching – away from Grand Slams – in 2009, where players are allowed one timeout per set. Steve Simon, chief executive of the WTA, is keen to expand the rule and allow coaching from the stands, too. ‘The on-court coaching has been positive,’ Simon said. ‘I want to look at it further. ‘I don’t know where it will go, but I am not understanding why we allow coaching on court but not from the box. There’s some great personalities among the coaches that could be good for our sport. It’s something that I would actually like to see expand.’

Nadal’s argument is fairly straightforward – what’s the point of having a coach if they can’t actually help you in the moments you need them most?

In other sports, coaches can make in-game tactical switches and offer their thoughts, whether from the sidelines or during half-time etc but could tennis opt for a more futuristic method?

Djokovic’s commercial aspect

Djokovic is not a fan of the rule (Picture: AFP/Getty)

US Open qualifying in 2017 allowed players to speak to their coaches while on the same side of the court, and use gestures when the player is on the other side of the court.

Djokovic was in favour of the idea when it was initially released but also put forward a more technologically advanced suggestion.

‘I think that’s a cool idea, to be honest,’ he said during Wimbledon.

‘Signalising different symbols is a little bit—I have to think about that. But when you have your player on your side, it’s fine. Of course, when it’s within that time limit, respect towards the other player, the rhythm of the server. The headset, also, I think is fine. This is kind of an intimate conversation where you feel comfortable, that you communicate wirelessly with your coach who is there.

Was on-court coaching in US Open qualifying a success? Stacy Allaster – U.S. Tennis Association’s chief executive for professional tennis – has been the driving force behind the change in US Open qualifying this year, where they also trialled a shot clock. She insists: We’re in the business of promoting tennis and we have to stop looking inside, at what we like, and look at what fans want.’ In US Open qualifying players were allowed to speak to coaches while on the same side of the court and use gestures when the player is on the other side of the court. Stanford Boster – the coach of Mitchell Krueger who tested rules in qualifying – was impressed, and said: ‘The coaching happens out there anyway. That’s just a fact. ‘Guys do it in different languages. Just bring it all out in the air and let it happen naturally. It’s a great rule. I love it.’

‘I think it is also a good idea for the commercial part. Obviously there’s a lot of headset companies that would probably include their budget into tennis, which is always great. But I don’t know. They’ve said that the TV audience possibly could hear what you were speaking with your player. Still have to be a bit careful.



‘When the WTA introduced on-court coaching, many ATP players were not really positive about it. I thought it was a good move for the sport. I mean, we’re probably one of the only, maybe [the] only global sport that doesn’t use coaching during the play. Even golf, individual sport, you have caddies that you communicate with throughout the entire course.’

Now, of course, any decision shouldn’t be solely driven by how tennis can help headset companies flog their gear but the idea of selling the game – particularly from a broadcasting perspective – is an important point to touch upon.

Are headsets (as shown by Chicago Bears head coach John Fox) the way forward? (Picture:Getty)

Having coaches offering advice to players during a match at given points is, in theory, a very attractive proposition. It could provide new insight to the average spectator about tactical analysis and general strategies, while perhaps giving an even more fascinating outlook on the mental side of tennis and how a good coach can help to restore confidence and belief to their player.

For the sport to reach out to a wider audience, headsets for players to chat to their coaches at given moments in particular seem like a cool, innovative way to bring in-game coaching to life in the modern age.

Federer’s level playing field

Federer is a fan of the rule (Picture: Getty)

Before we get too carried away with these exciting ideas, it’s probably worth hearing from the man who’s won more Grand Slam titles than any other male in tennis history.

Federer is one of the biggest voices against changing the rule and he rejects the idea on two counts.


‘I’m not all for it,’ he said at Wimbledon.

‘I find it kind of cool that in tennis, you know, you’re sort of on your own out there.

‘Not everybody has the same amount of resources for coaching, as well. So I’m not sure if it’s that beneficial.’

MORE: Who of Federer, Nadal and Djokovic is truly the GOAT?

MORE: Which of Novak Djokovic, Roger Federer & Rafael Nadal’s Grand Slam wins was the most ‘special’?

Both are compelling arguments and, admittedly, at first glance on the subject matter, I was completely behind Federer.

The individualistic nature of tennis is something that is so inherently special about it and the lonely mental aspect of the game has always, to my mind, set the truly great apart from the good (and the not-so-good).

His second point is important, too. Away from the very top of tennis, there are huge gaps in pay and lifestyle on the ATP Tour, which I believe makes on-court coaching unfair at lower-level events.

So are we scrapping the whole idea then?

Can we find a solution for all? (Picture: Getty)

Federer has pointed out that it’s difficult to implement these ideas universally in a fair and effective way but it’s perhaps possible to bring a new ruling into the tour at different levels.

There are already plans afoot to trial new ideas at the NextGen Finals in Milan but should on-court coaching prove successful there, perhaps the Masters 1000 events are the best long-term home for this particular rule change.

Virtually every player who competes in these events will be high-enough ranked to be able to afford a coach and they’re already on a big enough platform with a worldwide reach to truly measure success before it’s rolled out at ATP 500 and 250 tournaments.


However, I would support Grand Slams to not embrace the idea. Perhaps it works best to keep them as the ‘purest’ form of tennis. Best-of-five sets, no coaching – a true test of personal endurance and perseverance.

There are those who love the sport who want to keep it exactly as it is but the reality of a younger, more technology-based generation is that tennis shouldn’t be stuck in its ways.

It can enjoy the best of both worlds – as cricket does by adopting test match and 20/20 formats – to bring together the new and the old in one giant melting pot of awesome.

MORE: Novak Djokovic fires warning to ATP Tour ahead of comeback to rival Roger Federer and Rafael Nadal

MORE: British No. 1 Johanna Konta hits out at coverage of women’s tennis