lol. I thought tennis coaching was meant to be safe from AI. Seriously impressive article from Peter and Nico, as to the capabilities of AI to turn raw footage into technical insights, or at least some more objective measurement of body angles. I still have reservations as to the actual hard part of coaching though, which is how you communicate these insights to the player in the best possible way (and that is the world-class aspect that I think will be tougher for a model to convey, although feed enough data and it will probably get there better than humans). E.g., Richard's backhand: "Bend the elbows a little and keep the racquet head up. Hit the ball just in front of the front hip, and swing through to finish over your right shoulder, not at the sky." Is that world-class coaching? In my humble opinion, it is not. And I wouldn't be surprised if Richard's backhand failed to improve trying to act on that specific set of instructions. While the information *might* be correct, the instruction is too sequential/serial and doesn't respect the more emergent nature of how people self-organise or the more metaphorical way we can enact behaviour change. This might sound dumber, but I think a more elegant instruction (based on Claude's set of feedback) might get distilled to "hit the ball harder" and Richard might discover (unconsciously, perhaps) that a higher racquet head and more elbow bend at the start creates more speed. I also don't think it respects different hitting arm structures (e.g., Tiafoe's double-bend vs many pros who straighten the arms more) but of course this data set only included 11 pros and used Tiafoe as a comp, so not really a weakness of the model in that respect. I also think footage angles and context of incoming ball make video analysis a double-edged sword. E.g., comparing Richard's forehand to Zverev's, where Richard is centre of court/screen on the front foot vs Zverev, left of centre (screen and court) hitting open-stanced. Claude says contact is "further out to the side than any pro" and advocates to "let the ball come closer" -- closer to the body? closer as in later contact? I'd say that is the opposite of what you really want in a forehand, and of what Zverev does on his forehand. But again, that could all be fixed and adjusted for in terms of making sure the model learns to compare more similar game contexts and video angles. Finally, while I write a very technical kind of game report for tennis pros, my thesis in general is that technique is more important the higher you get (i.e., it matters more from getting to 20 to 1, but matters far far less in getting from 400 to 40) and even less still at the club level. I'm waffling here and I have more thoughts than I can put down quickly here, but perhaps an article is warranted on this, because this is what's coming. But overall very bullish on this kind of thing getting refined and used more and making coaching better, so well done guys; I'll be out of a job in no time.