‘Sad Day for Tennis’ – Journalist Criticizes the Massive Change on ATP and WTA Tour

While the ATP and the WTA Tour have been the talk of the town for various reasons, the latest controversy is focused on ATP’s announcement on in-match coaching. Yesterday, the 21st of June, the apex body of men’s tennis yesterday gave allowance to in-match coaching.

The decision comes following a series of instances where players were reported to receive in-match coaching during their matches. As per the announcement, the decision will initially be put to trial for the entire second half of the 2022 season, starting from July 11th. Furthermore, the trial will also be in place at the US Open and the Nitto ATP Finals.

While the decision has received acceptance from a major section of the tennis world, it has also received criticism from other portions. Senior tennis journalist Christopher Clarey was among the many who criticized the decision.

Christopher Clarey calls out ATP for its decision

Christopher Clarey is one of the most respected journalists in tennis. With over 25 years of experience, the tennis correspondent of New York Times has covered more than 100 Grand Slams in his career.

Also read- Andy Murray Confidently Claimed Serena Williams as the Undisputed GOAT

Learning about ATP’s decision, Clarey took to his Twitter handle, calling it a sad day for tennis. Known for boldly putting forward his views, Clarey criticized ATP for its decision while discussing the necessity of such a step.

He tweeted, “Sad day for tennis in my view. And that the US Open is part of it makes it even sadder. Tennis does not need in-match coaching. It just thinks it does.”

Will ATP’s decision stand the test of time?

ATP has listed out a long list of dos and don’ts to be followed by the player and the coach during in-match coaching.

Watch this story- Top five best Serena Williams outfit of all time

While the provision looks a right step to many, it would be a thing to see how things turn out. On the other hand, considering the longevity of similar provisions made in the past, it remains a question if this one would supersede those provisions.