Uncle Toni Admits to On Court Coaching

[lacatch]

I thought it was interesting that Uncle Toni just "came clean" in a recent interview saying that he "talks to" (i.e., coaches) Rafa during matches and that at his age (Toni's) he has nothing to hide. Except that coaching is a clear violation of ATP rules--and although he's been caught on camera numerous times, no one does anything about it. Might be a language thing since many don't understand Spanish, but that's no excuse not to enforce the rules. At least give the guy a warning next time he does it. Kind of like Carlos Rodriguez in the Justine Henin days (he did everything but swing the racket for her during matches lol).

 

[Moxie]

I have looked for this, but find nothing, either in English or Spanish. Do you have a link to this quote?

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Moxie here is the link
http://www.menorca.info/menorca/472207/perder/ninguna/tragedia/asume/entrenar

---

oops I will post again the whole link didnt appear

---

http:/www.menorca.info/menorca/472207/perder/ninguna/tragedia/asume/entrenar

---

I saw the link posted on tennis.com.

 

[Moxie]

¿Cómo se comunican en la pista cuando Rafa está jugando?
Hablando. Ya sé que no está muy permitido pero considero que a mi edad, tampoco tengo que esconderme. No tengo por sistema, hacer señas. Hablo lo que puedo hablar. Me extralimito un poco a lo permitido pero miro de hablar con él siempre que lo necesito.
________

Q: How do you communicate on the court when Rafa is playing?

A: Talking. I know it's not really allowed, but I figure, at my age, why hide it? There's no system, no signs. I say what I can. I go a little too far beyond the bounds, but I try to talk to him when he needs it.

 

[ClayDeath]

he cheers for the clay warrior more than anything.


also this sport has to be played by an individual out there.


nobody really knows more about winning matches than guys like roger and nadal.

their coaches now are nothing more than cheerleaders. they are there for emotional support.

 

[Moxie]

I actually think the notion of coaching from the stands is a joke. What's the difference between say, "come on!" and "hit to his forehand?" The player knows what he has to do. It's a question of doing it, and the rest is rah-rah. Which is the same reason that I think that allowing coaching on the women's side is stupid, and, to top that one off, infantilizing. The only thing I think a coach or box can offer during the match is whether or not to challenge a call. Beyond that, I think the player is on his own, no matter what folks offer from the box.

 

[ClayDeath]

100% spot on moxie. in that respect this is the toughest sport there is.


a player out there has to do it all. he is the one who is grounded in reality more than anyone. he is the one who is engaged in a brutal battle out there on the court.


and finally my argument: who the hell knows more about winning matches than the clay warrior and roger?

they have been the ultimate problem solvers out there on the court.

 

[Moxie]

^ I really do think that all problem-solving happens on the court, by the actual player, and there's really little that the camp can do, once the match starts. Maybe one coaching tip in a thousand would garner a point won, but I'd argue that players on the court are working with their instincts, and what they chose to do in the split-second decision of most points is beyond coaching, in the moment. Coaching effects how they train, but I don't think it effects how they play, on the day.

 

[ClayDeath]

and then you throw in the fact that the it has become a very fast game with the runaway speed and the power of the game.


about all you can do is just react to the forces on the battlefield. there is little or no time to engage in a dialogue with the coaches in the stands.


they are mostly there for emotional support at that point.



coaching does happen but i think it vast majority of it happens before the matches. they talk about it at breakfast for instance or on the practice courts.

i hear roger likes to watch the matches on the tele. that often gives him clues as to how to wage war on the court against a particular adversary.

 

[MargaretMcAleer]

Thanks Moxie and Clay Death for your posts.Great points and well said.

 

[ClayDeath]

uncle tony probably screams at him about giving up the control of the center of the court but that is something nadal knows anyway. he knows he wants to run around his backhand to hit forehands when he has no confidence in his backhand.

he knows he is playing 100 miles behind the baseline because any tom, dick, and harry are blasting 75 winners against him when he is doing that.

nadal just plays wrong at times and he knows it better than tony that he is trying to wing it out there.


I am not sure if you can call that real coaching.

---

thanks fasionista.

 

[Johnsteinbeck]

I actually think the notion of coaching from the stands is a joke. What's the difference between say, "come on!" and "hit to his forehand?" The player knows what he has to do. It's a question of doing it, and the rest is rah-rah. Which is the same reason that I think that allowing coaching on the women's side is stupid, and, to top that one off, infantilizing. The only thing I think a coach or box can offer during the match is whether or not to challenge a call. Beyond that, I think the player is on his own, no matter what folks offer from the box.

sorry, but i'll have to disagree here. there's a huge difference. for one, even "come on" vs "calm down" makes a difference (not enough to be coaching). but "hit to his forehand"? you're making it sound like there are not tactical or strategical decisions to make within a match. but a player has to decide which wing he wants to attack, if he needs to go for his shot or take a safer approach, how to work the pace etc. and any remark on that is coaching, because it brings in a third party's perspective on the current state of the player, his opponent and their match (just like regarding challenges, the perspective can make a difference in asessing so many decisive factors). does it make a difference whether or not the player "knows what to do anyway"? if you want to keep the rule, the answer has to be no, because otherwise the ump will always have to ask the player "was that fresh info, or was it already obvious to you?"

so imo, anything you tell your player that goes beyond "you can do it" is coaching - simple as that.

 

[Kieran]

Uncle T has a lot of class.

I think cheering on the chappies and directing from the wings is as different as applauding an actor on stage - and prompting him when he forgets his lines. Beasts of a different colour...

 

[Riotbeard]

I actually think the notion of coaching from the stands is a joke. What's the difference between say, "come on!" and "hit to his forehand?" The player knows what he has to do. It's a question of doing it, and the rest is rah-rah. Which is the same reason that I think that allowing coaching on the women's side is stupid, and, to top that one off, infantilizing. The only thing I think a coach or box can offer during the match is whether or not to challenge a call. Beyond that, I think the player is on his own, no matter what folks offer from the box.

sorry, but i'll have to disagree here. there's a huge difference. for one, even "come on" vs "calm down" makes a difference (not enough to be coaching). but "hit to his forehand"? you're making it sound like there are not tactical or strategical decisions to make within a match. but a player has to decide which wing he wants to attack, if he needs to go for his shot or take a safer approach, how to work the pace etc. and any remark on that is coaching, because it brings in a third party's perspective on the current state of the player, his opponent and their match (just like regarding challenges, the perspective can make a difference in asessing so many decisive factors). does it make a difference whether or not the player "knows what to do anyway"? if you want to keep the rule, the answer has to be no, because otherwise the ump will always have to ask the player "was that fresh info, or was it already obvious to you?"

so imo, anything you tell your player that goes beyond "you can do it" is coaching - simple as that.

Agreed, although I think ultimately this is a loosing battle Tony is one of the worst about on court coaching, but I think a lot of players camps do it now.

 

[shawnbm]

Like Kieran and Steinbeck, I do think he is confessing to a taboo on the ATP--coaching. At the same time, I like what Moxie says about how it really boils down to the player on the court. It is one thing to suggest doing something during a match and another to be able to do so in the moment.

 

[Ricardo]

^ I really do think that all problem-solving happens on the court, by the actual player, and there's really little that the camp can do, once the match starts. Maybe one coaching tip in a thousand would garner a point won, but I'd argue that players on the court are working with their instincts, and what they chose to do in the split-second decision of most points is beyond coaching, in the moment. Coaching effects how they train, but I don't think it effects how they play, on the day.

i guess the above really shows your colors, what one-sided blind fandom argument was that? players know it all? really? how many times have we seen players get too defensive, toss the ball a little low to serve, stand too far behind the line..... this is where coaches can come in and speak out, right there on court by giving immediate advise and that MAKES A DIFFERENCE. It's beyond delusion how you even attempt to argue like this.....

Secondly the rule says no coaching on court is allowed, that's the bottom line.. and it's unfair to others who don't resort to that. Obviously being right/wrong doesn't matter to you, it's whatever suits you......:nono

 

[Moxie]

^ What it really is, Ricardo, is that I don't really understand how it can work, or what possible good it can do, shouting a few notes from the stands.

 

[Ricardo]

and then you throw in the fact that the it has become a very fast game with the runaway speed and the power of the game.


about all you can do is just react to the forces on the battlefield. there is little or no time to engage in a dialogue with the coaches in the stands.


they are mostly there for emotional support at that point.



coaching does happen but i think it vast majority of it happens before the matches. they talk about it at breakfast for instance or on the practice courts.

i hear roger likes to watch the matches on the tele. that often gives him clues as to how to wage war on the court against a particular adversary.

so how does that make it alright? it's simply against the rules, if you play this sport you play by its rules.

 

[ClayDeath]

clay warrior also is the most obstinate individual in the entire history of mankind.


he refuses to listen to anybody. I am not sure if anybody can tell him anything except for his mom and dad. he listens to nobody.

hell he even refuses to improve.

 

[Ricardo]

^ What it really is, Ricardo, is that I don't really understand how it can work, or what possible good it can do, shouting a few notes from the stands.

alright, i'll simplify down to this. The logic is, if a player does it without coaching that's one outcome. When a coach does on court coaching (tell the player to hit flatter, stand closer/further, etc), if the player listens it brings another outcome of a match - the extent may be just a point, or a game, or more. The rule aims to eliminate the possibility of making this different outcome however big/slight it is, as far as coach-involvement is concerned - of course it's all on the technical side we are talking here.
The rule specifically prohibits this behavior, there should've been no argument about this... whether or not you are a fan.

The 'come on's and 'you can do it' etc is not defined as 'coaching', which everyone knows, so don't try to confuse the issue.

According to you, they should do it like Davis Cup since it doesn't make any difference, then all is fine.

---

clay warrior also is the most obstinate individual in the entire history of mankind.


he refuses to listen to anybody. I am not sure if anybody can tell him anything except for his mom and dad. he listens to nobody.

hell he even refuses to improve.

so what's the name of this 'clay warrior'? surely not Nadal, your description is nothing like him. It sounds like some hopeless player who'll never make it