The US Open has never been scared of doing things differently. The final grand slam of the tennis season is the most flamboyant and flashy of the four majors and, traditionally, has been the grand slam which has been most willing to break with tradition. With its night sessions, mid-match player interviews and nonchalant ball kids, the US Open organisers have long been willing to use their imagination in order to stand out from the three other majors.

This year’s tournament, which begins on Monday, will be no different. For the first time in grand slam history, on-court coaching will be permitted. This means that coaches will be allowed to speak to their player from the stands at any point during the match.

It is a contentious rule change. Until relatively recently, players were not allowed to receive coaching of any kind during a match and umpires were at liberty to issue warnings if they felt this rule was being flouted (which it often was). But in recent years, the women’s tour has allowed coaches to come on to the court to speak to their player on change-overs.

My first thought was this was a positive step forward for the sport and would increase the entertainment value for fans and quality of the matches. Tennis has long been a sport accused of being too resistant to change and so the introduction of on-court coaching was something of a revolutionary move.

To date though, on-court coaching has received a mixed reception. One of the beauties of sport, and particularly individual sport, is that it is a one-on-one tussle – a battle of wills whereby the two players pit their minds and bodies against one another. However, the introduction of on-court coaching threatens to remove one facet of this battle; the psychological aspect.

It is, of course, one thing for a player to be told to employ a specific tactic or game plan, it is another entirely to actually carry it out. But on-court coaching threatens to remove the player’s own decision making and problem solving which can be so thrilling for spectators to watch. Players such as Roger Federer, Serena Williams and Andy Murray are at the top of the sport as much for their mental agility as their racket skills or physical prowess.

If a match becomes dominated by coaches shouting particular suggestions – or worse, orders to their players – it is hard to see how that will appeal to the watching public. When the WTA Tour introduced microphones to the coaches when they came on court to give their input, there were some examples which, without question, added to the spectacle. The input gave a glimpse into the inner workings of elite tennis in a way that few other things ever had.

However, there were other examples which intruded on moments that, for the benefit of both the player and the sport, would have been better to remain private. Is there any gain in the watching public eavesdropping on players breaking down in tears or having a spat with their coach? The heat of battle can be an intense place and things are said that would not dare be uttered in any other situation. This can paint the player in a bad light and can also give the impression that they are no more than a puppet following their coach’s instructions.

Those inside tennis remain in two camps about this latest development. Brad Gilbert, one time coach to Andy Murray, is a huge supporter of on-court coaching and wants to see it rolled out to the men’s tour while Darren Cahill, who has coached many of the world’s best including Andre Agassi and Lleyton Hewitt, is fervently against the practice, believing that players could become too reliant on their coach’s input.

The jury remains out and the feedback after the US Open will be intriguing. The way sport is moving, it is likely that on-court coaching will become the norm. There may be some gains in that but it will mean that the pure, one-on-one fight will disappear in tennis forever.

AND ANOTHER THING…

Every time there is a fresh doping scandal, the argument surfaces which suggests that doping should be made legal. There are those who believe that if the drug cheats cannot be caught consistently, which they obviously are not at the moment, then the way to level the playing field is to scrap the anti-doping rules and allow athletes to take what they want. Well, here, in a nut-shell, is why that cannot happen.

Earlier this week, it was announced that Bulgaria’s former European weightlifting champion, Velichko Cholakov, died at the age of just 35. Cholakov, who was also an Olympic and world medallist, served a four-year doping ban after testing positive for a banned anabolic steroid prior to the 2008 Olympic Games and is just one of a number of Bulgarian weightlifters who have died prematurely.

Those who suggest that legalising doping would level the playing field are delusional. Athletes currently take drugs in order to gain an advantage over their competitors but legalising it would immediately make doping obligatory. We’d get to a place whereby not doping would mean that winning was out of the question.

No one is arguing that the anti-doping authorities do not still have much work to do, but they must continue their fight or else athletes dying in their thirties, or perhaps even younger, will become commonplace.