Tennis Parents – Recognizing the Shifting Point

Recently, the issue of “tennis parenting,” a term used loosely to represent everything that involves the dynamics of how parents handle their relationship with their kid who chooses to play competitive tennis, has resurfaced within the last month. During an ITF tournament in Israel, witnesses by the court side saw sixteen-year-old player Andrada Surdeanu crying with blood streaming down her nose after her father Lucian slapped her following a loss in the quarterfinals. As if that was not disturbing enough, both Surdeanu and her mother Ioana came to the father’s defense. Andrada said that it was normal for her father to punish her and that she “deserved” it. Ioana claimed that Lucian was unjustly mistreated by the Israeli police following the incident, while barely recognizing her husband’s excessive act.

Meanwhile, in France the film 40-Love (Terre Battue in French which actually means ‘Clay Court’) was released across theaters two weeks ago, inspired from the real-life story of a father, back in the early 2000s, who would secretly add a drug causing drowsiness into the water of his children’s opponents in order to give his children an advantage against their opponents. When one of the opponents ended up dying as the result of one such attempt, the scheme was uncovered and the father headed to jail.

On a different note, Roger Federer spoke to BBC few days ago about the ins and outs of parenting children who play competitive tennis, and vowed that he would never be a “pushy” parent if his kids decided to play competitive tennis. Federer emphasized that youngsters need space from their parents, and spend time alone with their coaches whether in practice or in tournaments. His insight was valuable in that he underlined the distinction between supportive and pushy parents, certainly drawing from his experience with his own parents.

I agree with Federer – and my own experience back in my times as a young tennis player confirms this – that parents need not necessarily travel to every tournament and constantly be around the coach and the kid. At the same time, I must add that this is ideal only if the parents do not have a tennis background and do not therefore understand the game as well as the coach, or even the kid. On the one hand, many parents in this category do a wonderful job of being there for their kid when needed, but know that their role is to provide emotional support and not to get excessively involved in tennis-related discussions that should be left to the coach. On the other hand, a number of parents also suffer from a variation of the “Dunning-Kruger effect” and turn the experience of competition into a miserable one for their kid.

It is important to pinpoint one area that I feel is not adequately represented in the discussions involving tennis parents. Parents that suffer from this problem (often without realizing that they do) need to be told in plain and simple words that for the duration of a practice session, or a match, they are not the parents in the traditional role. Let’s detail why parents are unable to resist the temptation of sticking their nose where it does not belong.

Take for example the parents of an 11-year-old kid who is playing competitive tennis. Throughout their kid’s life up to that point, parents have made every single decision for their kid, when to eat, what to eat, when to study, when to go to sleep, when to go to the movies, etc. They have gotten addicted to that control, and the kid has gotten addicted to the comfort of knowing that, without both realizing that they have gotten used to that pattern. Now, comes the abrupt intrusion of an hour-long practice session, or of a match, and shatters that pattern and its related world of addiction.

As a result, the parents feel an unexpected loss of power. They can’t quite get their hands on the matter (the game of tennis), and yet, they watch their kids emotionally suffer or get upset during a period of bad play. Imagine the frustration of the inability to reconcile their unknowingly over-developed ‘control-freak side’ when it comes to every detail concerning their child, with the helplessness that they feel at not being able to do anything about it when their kid is experiencing problems. They have been able to “make it go away” in the past for 11 years, and now all of a sudden, they can’t perform what they perceive to be their usual duty.

That is the shifting point where the dynamics between tennis parents and their kid’s tennis experience can go sour in a hurry. They can understand and accept their limitations, consider that shifting point as their own “growing pain,” and deal with the change properly. Or, they can give in to their addiction, their control freak side that has furtively been reinforced over the years, and begin to cause friction by imposing their own unwelcomed intrusion into their kid’s tennis-related domain. Unfortunately, parents are not sufficiently made aware of the inevitable arrival of this specific moment that I referred to as the “shifting point” above. Believe it or not, what may seem crystal clear to the person who reads this, remains a mystery to most tennis parents who do not have a tennis background. My advice to the coach, or to anyone who is a close friend of such tennis parents, is that they make the parents aware of the tension that this shift will cause at arrival. Explain the process in detail, moment by moment! Believe me, they will need to hear it, probably more than once! Your explanation must be so clear that they must be able to immediately recognize that moment when it rears its head, and they begin to sense the feeling of frustration as a result, announcing the eminent arrival of the shifting point.

It is worthy to note that this moment will occur with every tennis parent, whether they are good ones or bad ones. Parents take care of their kids, help them in any way they can, and guide them in every aspect of their lives as they grow into their teenage years. The inner conflict created by the shifting point does not define their parenthood, nor does it label them as good or bad parents. However, the way they deal with that temporary loss of control that they previously took for granted, will in turn have an impact on their children’s tennis experience, and possibly leave long-term traces on their future perception of the sport. Also keep in mind that this article focused on parents that do not have a tennis background and do not have extensive knowledge of the game at a competitive level. As to what happens if they did, it is for another article in the future.

In Defense of Arnaud Clément

The big "Salad Bowl" sitting pretty in Biel, Switzerland
The big “Salad Bowl” sitting pretty in Biel, Switzerland
For a few days, following the French’s devastating (at least from their perspective) defeat at the hands of the Swiss team in the finals of the Davis Cup campaign, Arnaud Clément, the captain of the French team, experienced what most losing Davis Cup captains go through in such periods: suffer the wrath of retrospectively enlightened critics who seem to know better, the angry fans who are looking for a victim to blame, and anyone (and everyone) who claims that they would have known what to do, had they been in his shoes. While the irresistible art of “armchairing” gripped those who believed – in the after-math of course – that Clément made the wrong decisions, anyone with a rational approach to the ins and outs of the developments leading up to, and through, the final weekend, should be able to see that his choices were not the wrong at the time that he had to make them.

The first challenge that faced Clément was to nominate four players that were to represent the French team against the Swiss. He had an accomplished doubles team composed of Julien Benneteau and Édouard Roger-Vasselin, the winners of the 2014 Roland Garros title. Had he picked them, he would have had to leave out two of the following players out of the team: Jo-Wilfried Tsonga, Gilles Simon, Gaël Monfils, and Richard Gasquet. Furthermore, his head would have been hanging at the Place de la Concorde even before the weekend was over, had one of the two singles players that he picked got injured on Friday, and was substituted by one of the doubles players on Sunday, leading to an almost-guaranteed loss. He did what any reasonable coach would do. Unless you have an extraordinary doubles team, such as the Bryan brothers of the U.S.A., you go with your strong singles players who could collect four out of the five points that you need to win the tie, and hope that two of them can combine to provide a solid doubles effort.

Out of the four strong singles players mentioned above, two of them could also play doubles: Gasquet and Tsonga. In fact, they won a crucial doubles match against a formidable Tomas Berdych – Radek Stepanek in Davis Cup when they played the Czech team, and did reach the quarterfinals of the Toronto Masters 1000 having beaten a respectable Laender Paes – Stepanek team, only to withdraw in the quarterfinals. In contrast, Simon and Monfils are singles players. Clément wanted one doubles specialist on the team and he took Benneteau, a sensible choice. It is also reasonable that he picked the two singles players that could also play doubles, and chose only one out of the two other players who could play singles. Calm down Simon fans (and I happen to be one myself), but on clay, Clément’s choice to pick Monfils over your guy was completely understandable and justified.

Friday ended with a 1-1 tie, and displayed a version of Federer that represented a level situated somewhere between “terrible” and “mediocre” compared to his real one. None of the after-the-fact armchair experts could have predicted that Federer’s level would rise in the following 48 hours faster than the Enterprise accelerated from ¼ impulse drive to Warp Speed nine. Most believed that Tsonga and Gasquet would triumph over Wawrinka and Federer, and that is, if Federer played doubles in his limited condition.

However, on Friday two things happened that were completely outside the control of either captain. First, Tsonga injured his wrist which caused him to withdraw, by his own request, from the doubles. Second, Federer played through his match against Monfils with no pain in his back, and although he got crushed by the Frenchman, he was unusually upbeat about the rest of the weekend. Clément once again made the only reasonable decision: replace Tsonga with Benneteau, and thus, put his two best doubles players on the court. Gasquet and Benneteau did not play bad, but Wawrinka and Federer played the kind of sensational doubles that they have not played since their run to the gold metal back in 2008 Olympic Games. Three sets later, Switzerland took a 2-1 lead in the tie, and everything went from bad to worst on Sunday when Federer put up one of his better clay-court performances in the last few years, running Gasquet around and finishing the points with remarkable shot-making skills.

Just like that, the Swiss won the Davis Cup, and the Statlers and Waldorfs of the world came out in numbers, ready to guillotine Clément. Yet, once again, Clément’s choices were not only the most reasonable ones to make, but as seen above, the only ones he could make in certain cases. It was one of the most unfortunate weekends for a Davis Cup captain that I have ever witnessed, because it contained every twist needed to transform it into the “festival of blame” that followed the next few days in the French tennis circles.

Unfortunately for Clément, if someone wanted to write a script to make him look bad at the end of the day, they could not have done a better job. First, the controversy surrounding the Swiss team, involving the Wawrinka-Mirka malaise on the preceding weekend in London, followed by the unexpected injury of Federer that caused him to withdraw from the finals against Novak Djokovic, made the Swiss team look beatable and demoralized, thus giving the impression that the French had the psychological upper hand. Second, the fact that the French had two weeks of preparation on clay, versus the less-than-a-week preparation time for the Swiss, not to mention that Federer had a total of one hour and twenty minutes of total practice time before Friday’s first match, added to the impression that the French had all the necessary elements tilted to their advantage. Last, the aura of having a team composed of Monfils, Tsonga, and Gasquet, that has never lost at home, firmly put the French in the favorite category in the perceptions of many, although reality was the opposite, at least on paper. These factors combined to create a firm belief by the French that losing to Switzerland on that particular weekend in Lille would be considered nothing less than a debacle. Clément ended up in the position of a captain who would either be doing only what was expected had France won, or face the prospect of being profiled as a failure in the case of a loss. Unfortunately for him, the latter took place.

Fortunately for him, however, the French Tennis Federation recently consulted the players, and they stood tall behind Clément, ensuring that he retains his captaincy. Today, The French Tennis Federation confirmed that Clément will continue to serve as the captain, for at least two more years. It must be a relief to the ex-Australian Open finalist, knowing that over the weekend, Yannick Noah expressed his disappointment over the loss and explicitly verbalized his interest to become the captain if given the opportunity. Clement did not take that lightly and struck back at Noah with criticism of his own, saying that he takes the 1983 Roland Garros champion’s words as an attack against him, and that things in reality are not the same as they may have appeared to Noah on the TV screen. Personally, I am a big fan of Yannick Noah, and he has already proven to be an astute Davis Cup captain in the past (remember 1991 and his decision to play Henri Leconte in singles). Yet, I can’t help but agree with the players in Clément’s case, and disagree with the members of the “armchair crew,” including Noah, who have the luxury to speak in retrospect unlike the captain.

Clément did carry them to the finals and the French need to understand that for one weekend in November, they faced a Swiss team that had superior skills and better level of quality in their tennis than they did. Donned with the number two and four players in the world, and one of the most underrated coaches in tennis (Severin Lüthi), the Swiss lived up to their potential under very difficult circumstances. Considering Wawrinka’s form and Federer’s quick recovery, followed by his excellent level of play on Saturday and Sunday, I am not sure if Clément would have coached his team to victory, even under the best of circumstances. Davis Cup captains sometimes do commit mistakes and fail, and even deserve to be fired in extreme circumstances. But the loss against Switzerland two weekends ago was not one of those cases. Clément should rightfully remain in his position and deservedly get another chance to lead his team in 2015.

Fed-WawLittle did Federer & Wawrinka know on May 23rd, during this early morning practice on Philippe Chatrier court, that exactly six months from that day, they would be lifting the Davis Cup trophy together!

Navigation