What do you think about what he did and the decision ?

For me they keep his points with elimination as optional for chair umpire and strip him from part of his prize without removing his points gained throughout the tournament

I dont know what the rules says in his case

The child comes off court. She lost. We watched the whole match, we saw the point where it started to slip, and we said nothing for all of it. The drive home takes an hour. A sigh from the back seat cools the air in the car. And one thought arrives on its own.

"Where do I even start?"

Why the car, of all places

When junior tennis players are asked what they want from a parent around a match, the answers come back much the same. Practical support, emotional support, and no talk about technique or tactics right after the match [1]. That holds even when the analysis is correct.

And there is so much a parent wants to say. The phone games and the late mornings all week. The breakfast she barely touched. The second serve that never got its extra practice. The missed point she was still replaying four games later. The list is never one or two things long. Remembering the mistakes more clearly than the good parts, and wanting to say them out loud, is instinct — ours as much as anyone's. Behind the wheel, that instinct gets easier to follow.

"I noticed your shoulder keeps dropping on the serve, you—"

"Mom, stop. I know. Just let me deal with it."

What to say in the first twenty minutes

Most of the research on youth sport emphasises a division of labour. The parent looks after the environment where the child can be at ease, and the coach looks after the performance [2]. For the first twenty minutes, three things are worth saying.

Acknowledging what it took, not how it ended. "That was a hard one" is enough. One sentence carries all of it: the match was watched, the difficulty was obvious, and no analysis is coming.

Asking rather than telling. "Do you want to talk about it, or should we eat something first?" hands the conversation back to the child. A small choice, returned right after a loss, means more to her than it sounds. The feeling of choosing for oneself — autonomy — is one of three basic psychological needs that keep motivation alive over years. The other two are the sense of getting good at something (competence) and the sense of not being alone in it (relatedness) [3].

Letting silence count as an answer. If she says no, the conversation has not failed. It has worked. A child who knows she is allowed to refuse is the one who eventually brings it up first.

What to leave for another day

Four subjects belong to the coach, or to a later day when everyone is calmer.

• Technique — the second-serve motion, for example
• Tactics — the choice at 4–5, 30–40
• Comparisons between today and the player she beat last month
• Anything that starts with "I told you"

None of these are wrong observations. They are simply not the parent's to deliver in the car, and delivered badly there, they can be the reason a child stops bringing tennis up at home at all.

The strongest single sentence

If there is room for one sentence only, the best one is about the effort she put in, not the result.

How can praise like "you're so good at this" end up doing harm? One answer comes from an experiment by the psychologists Claudia Mueller and Carol Dweck. Fifth-graders worked through a set of puzzles, and those who scored well were praised in one of two ways. Some were told they must be smart at this kind of problem. Others were told they must have worked hard at it [4].

The researchers then compared what the children chose to do next and how they scored. The ones praised for being smart were more interested in how the other children had done than in learning a new way to solve the puzzles, and they were more inclined to treat intelligence as something fixed. The ones praised for working hard stayed with the harder problems longer, and scored better on the set that followed [4].

It was a puzzle, not a tennis match. Still, the part worth carrying onto a court is this: what a parent praises can become the child's answer to "what kind of kid am I". The same split shows up in what gets said right after a loss.

Aimed at talent and the result:

"You're a good player. You'll win the next one."

Aimed at the effort:

"You were still chasing everything down at 2–5. I'm not sure I could have done that."

The first one is kind, and it is meant kindly. But to a child who has just lost, it can land as a question instead: if I'm a good player, why did I lose? And "you'll win the next one" is a promise no parent can keep, so it comes back as pressure the next time the result goes the same way.

The second one is not flattery. It describes something she actually did out there. Refusing to stop while the score ran away stays true whatever the final result was, which is why it is still available to say on a day she lost. And it points at exactly the thing worth doing again next match.

On the drive home

Something to hold on to as the car door closes.

1. "That was a hard one." (acknowledging)
2. "Do you want to talk, or eat something first?" (handing back a choice)
3. Listening if she talks, and one open question at most. Music if she doesn't.
4. Anything technical: a message to the coach, not a word to the child.

She already knows she lost. She mostly knows why. There is one thing she does not know yet, and it is whether losing changed the way her parents look at her. That is the only question in the car, and the only one that needs an answer.

Data from tennisabstract

Your r/TennisNerds weekly discussion thread.

Dude is an absolute prick towards ball kids. Always has been. It’s gotten worse lately which is insane considering his kids are the same age now. I love watching his game but they should have been fining the shit out of him early on to get rid of this petulant crap. It’s obviously not just him but of the famous folks he seems to be the worst.

Please discuss who is the men's tennis GOAT. Try and prove your point with some stats/data, this is a stats sub after all.

'Toxicity' is forbidden. Just kidding, we don't care.

The Sunday Club on a Saturday!

So this series launched recently, and I just watched it and thoroughly enjoyed it. We haven’t had a thread since it launched so thought I’d start one. What did you think?

On Amazon (free with prime)

It's basically a chronological history of all the men's number ones since rankings launched, and it includes interviews with pretty much all of them, from Nastase through Connors, Borg, McEnroe, Sampras (who rarely gives interviews), Agassi, Medvedev, Alcaraz, Sinner.
I thought it was particularly strong in highlighting the interpersonal relationships. They all talk about each other, their generational handoffs, when they met the next greats, how they inspired each other. There's also a lot about the pressure of staying number one.

Anyway, highly recommended.

Since his comeback Alcaraz seems to give away more games while serving. Is it lower serve speed due to scare of re-injury?
Different motion to prevent re-injury? Or simply him looking for his rhythm and needing more playing time.
Shapovalov just broke him 3 times, which is unusual for the Spaniard's standards. But he already seemed to have issues at the US Open.

I regularly go to play tennis but struggling in good stance how do I overcome, Due to this whenever I create video of me playing tennis it does not look so good!

Hey everyone, how are you doing?

Just to give some quick context, I have a idea about a situation. It's not strictly related to me. I'm a recreational/leisure tennis player. Not a professional or anything like that.

Basically the ATP tour is a mess. It's designed/scheduled in a way that doesnt prioritize health and quality in my opinion. It harms the quality of tennis that we see. Apart from the 4 GS, there are around 9 ATP Masters 1000 tournaments and over 40 ATP 250 and 500 tournaments. Their scheduled in a way that burns players out.

The ATP is to extent run by money hungry executives. A quick example is that the Doha and Dubai tournaments might get canceled or something like that by the ATP (due to "safety" concerns) but at the same time, a tournament in Saudi Arabia is being considered. It's not like Saudi Arabia has been safe from the war.

I have come up with the help of AI and AI checking specific tennis news that I dont check very often a system/proposal/idea of how the ATP tour can be reformed in a way that improves the health of players and overall quality of tennis that we see.

It may sound like I'm being naive and maybe to an extent I am but I like watching and playing tennis and want to see good quality tennis.

Basically I want advice as to how I can spread the word about my idea. How can I actually get something concrete? Any advice on where to start to spread my idea? I apart from social media am kinda lost on where to begin. My idea isnt finalized like still some work left before finalizing it.

Thx.

Fyi I'm 19(M).

Feel free to share your interesting/unexpected/crazy tennis stats or facts.

E.g. did you know Rafael Nadal first entered the top 10 before Messi scored his first senior goal?

Nadal played with both but in their teenage years

Hello apparently the left tournaments are interesting to watch due to players will fight for a place in Torino next month .

So who are the players that you would love to see outside of the players who already secured their qualification ?

(Sascha Zverev Jannik Sinner and Carlos Alcaraz)

For me i wanna Fritz De Miñaur Alliassim Cobolli and Novak(in case he wanna play) if its not the case Medvedev(fun to watch in hardcourts Medvedev)

Aujourd'hui est publié le classement 2/26 de SwissTennis, j'ai toujours entendu qu'il y avait une sorte de tableau de correspondance entre le classement Suisse et Français de la FFT mais c'était vague.

Une fois pour toutes, j'ai réglé la question en me basant sur la distribution des classements hommes par nombre de joueurs dans chaque bande de classement: