As coaches know from their work with athletes, improvement in any particular area comes from being made aware of a weakness and then working on improving it. Despite this knowledge, coaches are themselves rarely evaluated in any organized and systematic manner as a means of developing their abilities. Moreover, even more rarely is feedback obtained from those individuals who are the recipients of the coaches’ skills, namely, the players.

A common practice that occurs within the field of higher education is the evaluation of teachers by students. This information is used as constructive feedback for the future development of the teacher and in hiring and promotion procedures. This same process could be used to the benefit of the profession of coaching and the sport of tennis as a whole.

Drawing on the teacher evaluation form used in the School of Psychology at Nova University (where I hold a faculty position), adapting a form for tennis coaching would assess performance in a variety of areas on a five-point scale (1: poor; 2: below average; 3: average; 4: good; 5: excellent). Along with each numerical rating, a section for comments would enable players to provide specific feedback to the coaches.

1. Coaching knowledge – The depth and breadth of knowledge that the coach possesses in the areas of technique, physical and mental training, and equipment.
2. Manner and explanation – The ability of the coach to clearly convey relevant information to players.
3. Enthusiasm and stimulation – The amount of energy and love for the sport that the coach brings to his or her coaching responsibilities.
4. Attitude toward the athletes – The manner in which the coach treats the players in terms of respect, concern, and discipline.
5. The coach generally – How the player views the coach in general.

In addition to these assessments by the players, other important areas of coaching performance could be evaluated by the program director and head coach. Of particular note are the coaches’ off-court responsibilities including organizational and administrative capabilities, interpersonal skills with other staff members, parents, and individuals in the tennis industry, and intrapersonal attributes such as initiative and time management skills.

In taking this approach, it is important for coaches to view this process positively and constructively rather than being perceived as threatening. In fact, using such an systematic approach to coach evaluation would benefit coaches by removing potential arbitrariness and subjectivity from the decision-making process in hiring, pay raises, and promotions. On a more personal level, it would enable coaches to obtain clear information that they could use to improve their coaching.