Is off-court coaching "ruining" tennis? Taylor Fritz & Denis Shapovalov think so

Is the latest change to off-court coaching in tennis “ruining” the sport? That’s been the latest topic of debate for players after the International Tennis Federation announced it’s officially bringing the practice to the Grand Slams and all ATP and WTA events starting in 2025.

Off-court coaching had been trialed by the tours in some form since 2017, and has already been featured at the majors. Now, the ITF’s update to the rules of tennis means coaches are allowed to issue short bits of advice to players in between points either verbally or by hand signals, with longer conversation also allowed during breaks in play.

Read More: Coaching comes out of the shadows: Tennis loses a distinction, but gains replenished integrity

According to the ITF, the rule change is intended to align “the approaches to coaching across the international sanctioning bodies of tennis.” It’s also meant to help ease the burden on chair umpires in policing the practice, often across multiple languages, by reducing subjectivity.

The organization says it used feedback from players, coaches and more stakeholders, as well as the findings from previous off-court coaching trials across all levels—including the mens and women’s tours, Grand Slams and ITF World Tennis Tour and wheelchair tennis tours—before making the decision.

Despite all that feedback, it seems not everyone is a fan of the change—especially some of the ATP’s top players, who took to social media to engage in debate.

“Not just as a tennis player but as a fan of this sport it’s sad to see this new off court coaching rule,” said former world No. 10 Denis Shapovalov.

The Canadian, who currently sits at No. 95, echoed the words of Andre Agassi’s Open when he described the “beauty” of tennis as being “out there alone”: “Tennis is special because you are out there alone. Why are you trying to change the beauty of this game (?)”

US Open finalist Taylor Fritz added, “Can we stop ruining the 1v1 mental/strategic aspect of the sport PLEASE.”

Read More: Has tennis figured out its on-court coaching problem, or shown that it'll never be solved?

John Millman seemed to sum up the prevailing sentiment when he wrote: “Off-court coaching sucks.” The Aussie later elaborated that it “widens the gap between those who can pay for a team and those who can’t,” after previously claiming that it was “distracting” and “adds zero to the product.”

On the women’s side, former WTA world No. 1 Jennifer Capriati, who won three Grand Slams and achieved major success as a junior, suggested a tweak to the rules: Giving all players tablets with live match stats instead of access to coaching.

“A player should be able to figure this out instinctually, but sometimes what you think you are doing is not what’s actually happening,” she wrote. “You need to see the data. Then use that to execute.”

While the off-court coaching rule has been met with resistance on social media, it’s been widely adopted by the pros at all levels of the game. Proponents of the rule change point out that it brings out into the open all the sneaky coaching that was already taking place in the stands—who remembers Patrick Mouratoglou earning the infamous coaching violation that derailed Serena Williams’ 2018 US Open final?

Plus, it’s hard to argue that most players wouldn’t prefer having access to possibly game-changing advice during the toughest moments of a match.

Take, for example, Andrey Rublev's turnaround in the Mutua Madrid Open final. The Russian walked over to his coaching box before a crucial return game late in the second set, with Felix Auger-Aliassime leading by a set and serving to take them into a tiebreak. His team clued him into the fact that “in the Ad (side) when he’s in trouble, he goes more down the T.” A few points later, when facing a set point and serving on the Ad side, Auger-Aliassime did exactly that. Rublev was there, and thanks to that bit of advice, was able to rally in the third set and win the Madrid title.

But, as many social media users who have also joined the debate are quickly learning, it’s hard to prove the efficiency of a system when it’s judged on what could have been achieved or which defeats might have been avoided.

Money will continue to be a limiting factor in tennis, just as it was when the WTA Tour and eventually the ATP Tour first began their trials of off-court coaching. But should it be the only factor to consider in this debate around what ITF Senior Executive Director of Integrity Stuart Miller said has been a “positive change” overall for the sport?

“Players felt it was a positive development and makes tournaments more interesting for them. Coaches have said it helps player development and helps to improve the standing of their profession. Chair umpires have said it improves their ability to focus on monitoring the game and making the right decisions, rather than whether or not a coach is coaching against the rules,” Miller said.

“So all parties have welcomed this and it’s good to see the (annual general meeting) support what we think is going to be a positive change for the game of tennis.”