Tennis games/drills for pure beginners that don't require coach

[HunterST]

I'm coach a high school team and have around 30 players. Obviously, there are a lot of different ability levels. Some are literal first day beginners at the start of the season. I usually take some time to teach them the strokes, do some shadow swings, some pitch and hit, etc, but eventually I need to turn my attention to the higher level players.

The beginners aren't good enough to play real sets or even to cooperatively hit. I often have them pair up and take turns pitching to each other, but they can only do that so long before it becomes boring.

What are some things I could have them do on their own that would be valuable but would be more engaging than pitching and hitting for an hour and a half?

 

[styksnstryngs]

This definitely isn't going to be what you wanted to hear, but I think you need to cut players. If it was a tennis club then yeah, but high school tennis is a competitive sport. I don't think you'd be doing anyone a favor by keeping absolute beginners on the team. Not only does it slow down the actual competitors, but it also does nothing to improve the reputation of tennis for younger kids. If everyone gets in, it doesn't seem like a real sport compared to football or basketball.

 

[IowaGuy]

Mini tennis is great for beginners. Can play 4 per court or even 6 per court (alleys and centerline). Even just having them use continental grip on both sides and start to get a feel for hitting the ball with control.

Can also teach them the fundamentals of serving, and then have them practice serves every practice.

 

[HunterST]

This definitely isn't going to be what you wanted to hear, but I think you need to cut players. If it was a tennis club then yeah, but high school tennis is a competitive sport. I don't think you'd be doing anyone a favor by keeping absolute beginners on the team. Not only does it slow down the actual competitors, but it also does nothing to improve the reputation of tennis for younger kids. If everyone gets in, it doesn't seem like a real sport compared to football or basketball.

I see your point. I would agree if courts were limited or the program was struggling, but we have plenty of courts and varsity does great. The way I look at it, there could be a stellar athlete who is a freshmen with no experience. If I cut that player, he/she will probably not keep playing and we'll have missed out. Plus, I look at it as my way of giving back to the game by creating more tennis players.

 

[HunterST]

Mini tennis is great for beginners. Can play 4 per court or even 6 per court (alleys and centerline). Even just having them use continental grip on both sides and start to get a feel for hitting the ball with control.

Can also teach them the fundamentals of serving, and then have them practice serves every practice.

I could try mini tennis, for sure. I do have them practice serving as well.

 

[styksnstryngs]

I see your point. I would agree if courts were limited or the program was struggling, but we have plenty of courts and varsity does great. The way I look at it, there could be a stellar athlete who is a freshmen with no experience. If I cut that player, he/she will probably not keep playing and we'll have missed out. Plus, I look at it as my way of giving back to the game by creating more tennis players.

I know some coaches talk about not wanting to lose players from tennis, but I really do believe that it's healthier for the sport to cut the players that need to be cut. Focus on the varsity and JV kids to be competitive and improve the tennis program at the school, and better kids start coming in. Then the jv kids start imitating and get better much quicker. Obviously I don't know how good your varsity kids are, but if they're not winning everything in reach, then they could always be better. And I'll add this from experience, I'd rather be on the bottom of varsity on a great team than the top of a mediocre one. A strong tennis program creates more respect for the sport locally, instead of becoming the sport where you can slack off and not take it seriously-the sport for non-athletes.

 

[styksnstryngs]

I could try mini tennis, for sure. I do have them practice serving as well.

Also, cutting doesn't have to be by who wins matches right now- if you have an athlete in the making, it's your discretion to keep them while you cut others who clearly are just messing around and don't want to make varsity in a year.

 

[IowaGuy]

I could try mini tennis, for sure. I do have them practice serving as well.

My HS coach (old-school, former D1 in the 70's) had us play a ton of mini-tennis. "Regular" service box to service box, diagonal service boxes, alleys only, etc. I think it helped me really develop my touch game, which I appreciate now in my 40's when I can't hit as hard

To make it more fun and so that they take it seroiusly, you could play games to 10 points and make a little up/down game across the courts (winners move up a court, losers move down a court), kind of like King of the Court at local adult clinics.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

This definitely isn't going to be what you wanted to hear, but I think you need to cut players.

Emphatically disagree: I'd be more interested in building a program where all were welcome. Maybe they'll be late bloomers. Maybe they'll develop a love for the game that transcends HS.

Even if neither happen, I'd still view it as an opportunity to broaden tennis' reach and teaching the life lessons that go along with it rather than going for the brass ring.

If it was a tennis club then yeah, but high school tennis is a competitive sport. I don't think you'd be doing anyone a favor by keeping absolute beginners on the team.

Except maybe the ones that are cut.

Not only does it slow down the actual competitors,

So an absolute beginner is not really a competitor? How good does one have to be to be considered an "actual competitor"? That's like Startzel complaining that pushing is not "real tennis".

but it also does nothing to improve the reputation of tennis for younger kids.

Depends on your perspective. I could counter that if those younger kids see people getting cut, they might go elsewhere [which for you would be a positive, I guess; for me it would be a negative].

If everyone gets in, it doesn't seem like a real sport compared to football or basketball.

So it's only real if someone gets cut?

I guess it boils down to what your [and maybe the school's] goals are: if it's to focus on winning, it's definitely advantageous to cut. If winning is not the top priority, there may be advantages to not cutting.

 

[styksnstryngs]

Emphatically disagree: I'd be more interested in building a program where all were welcome. Maybe they'll be late bloomers. Maybe they'll develop a love for the game that transcends HS.

Even if neither happen, I'd still view it as an opportunity to broaden tennis' reach and teaching the life lessons that go along with it rather than going for the brass ring.



Except maybe the ones that are cut.



So an absolute beginner is not really a competitor? How good does one have to be to be considered an "actual competitor"? That's like Startzel complaining that pushing is not "real tennis".



Depends on your perspective. I could counter that if those younger kids see people getting cut, they might go elsewhere [which for you would be a positive, I guess; for me it would be a negative].



So it's only real if someone gets cut?

I guess it boils down to what your [and maybe the school's] goals are: if it's to focus on winning, it's definitely advantageous to cut. If winning is not the top priority, there may be advantages to not cutting.

I definitely see your point of view, but coming from a senior in high school who has played on teams both cutting and non-cutting, there is a world of difference. In school itself, tennis players get acknowledgement as ATHLETES. The tennis player not being an athlete in high school stereotype largely stems from the programs where kids join just so they have an extracurricular, or because their parents made them join something and they chose the lowest effort thing they could, something to blow off. Of course I'm not saying cut kids with passion, I'm saying cut the kids who make tennis look bad and who won't get anything out of it. A program that's even semi decent has a certain air of competitiveness and drive to improve that kills complacency, something that schools ok with losing don't have.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I definitely see your point of view, but coming from a senior in high school who has played on teams both cutting and non-cutting, there is a world of difference. In school itself, tennis players get acknowledgement as ATHLETES. The tennis player not being an athlete in high school stereotype largely stems from the programs where kids join just so they have an extracurricular, or because their parents made them join something and they chose the lowest effort thing they could, something to blow off.

Of course I'm not saying cut kids with passion, I'm saying cut the kids who make tennis look bad and who won't get anything out of it.

Do you mean those with little skill? Or those who are lazy? I'm all for cutting the lazy: you want to play, you gotta work. But I'm not for cutting the hard workers.

A program that's even semi decent has a certain air of competitiveness and drive to improve that kills complacency, something that schools ok with losing don't have.

I don't think it's incompatible to have winning as a secondary goal and also have competitiveness. Certainly, the less-skilled won't get equal playing time; but I would want to give them a chance to improve.

Again, I think it's a matter of the coach's and school's goals. To use the school as an analogy, I would think it's more important for the school to help out struggling students than to kick everyone out that doesn't meet some arbitrary test score.

 

[BulldogLouisiana]

This definitely isn't going to be what you wanted to hear, but I think you need to cut players. If it was a tennis club then yeah, but high school tennis is a competitive sport. I don't think you'd be doing anyone a favor by keeping absolute beginners on the team. Not only does it slow down the actual competitors, but it also does nothing to improve the reputation of tennis for younger kids. If everyone gets in, it doesn't seem like a real sport compared to football or basketball.

I know this isn't going to be what you want to hear, but it's high school tennis. In my opinion, it's mainly about parents anyway. At least at my high school (many years ago), it didn't matter how good the tennis team was, no one else cared - or went to matches. The best player on the tennis team this year is a sophomore that just started playing last year. From what I've heard, he barely made the team. This year he'll probably make it to State, where he'll probably lose to some guy who has taken private lessons since he was 5 years old, who hates tennis, and has a 24 year old stepmom. I digress.

I wish I had taken up tennis earlier in life. It's amazing to me that I've found cardio that I actually enjoy, and all in a sport that can be played much longer than most others. One of the guys I regularly play with is 81 years old, and he's a great player. Advocating to cut players, who could then miss out on a lifetime of fun and exercise, yeah I can't get behind that. If the school resources can support 30 players, then let them play. Although, it does sound like OP might be stretched a little thin.

 

[ChaelAZ]

This definitely isn't going to be what you wanted to hear, but I think you need to cut players.

Can't do that in Az. If a kid pays to play a sport they get to play, and really I think that is good for the kids overall. Tough for coaching because of the variety of skill levels, but would rather see all kids get into sports and make positive relationships than alternatives.

Anyway...


Agree with everyone above that mini-tennis is good for kids and players can find a buddy and do it at home in the street, driveway, or on a patio. I tell them to get a few chairs, a long stick or rod and drape a sheet of something over for a net. Then just play it out. REALLY good for the newest kids to get racquet control. Walls are also good for kids, but I would have them do more short drills than banging away. I also give them all oragne or red balls for practice too. Actually that is also realy good for on court rally drills. More control and easier for developing what stroke menchanics you can with them.

If you have a local coaches association for HS coaches make sure to join and gleen stuff from others!

 

[NLBwell]

See how many times in a row they can hit it against the wall.
Brad Gilbert's dad wouldn't let him play until he was able to hit against the backboard 50 times in a row.
That's extreme for a high school team, but it will help them gain skills quickly.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

I'm coach a high school team and have around 30 players. Obviously, there are a lot of different ability levels. Some are literal first day beginners at the start of the season. I usually take some time to teach them the strokes, do some shadow swings, some pitch and hit, etc, but eventually I need to turn my attention to the higher level players.

The beginners aren't good enough to play real sets or even to cooperatively hit. I often have them pair up and take turns pitching to each other, but they can only do that so long before it becomes boring.

What are some things I could have them do on their own that would be valuable but would be more engaging than pitching and hitting for an hour and a half?

give them goals.
if pitch & hit... you have to hit 20 in a row, to a specific half of the court, with a full long follow through, to "graduate" to coop rallying
red ball rally... you have to rally 20 in a row (40 hits), with full long follow through to "graduate" to orange ball
orange ball
green ball
yellow ball... rally 20 in a row before "graduating" to playing points (groundstroke games)

it's honestly a waste to do anything else if they can get 20 balls in a row... then they just resort to bunting, or some other made up stroke.