Originally Posted by tommyfr
But I was not impressed with the coaching in another sense.
1. Hey, the girl is 12 years old, not 8 or 9. She is here not disciplined, focused, on her toes, energetic as i see it. She has a kind of lazy body language during this exercise. Kind of tired. She moves like an old granny, and she is 12! I think the coach should attend to that issue first of all.
2. Second, she is taking the balls (with her backhand slices) on the way down, and hitting the balls with too much contact under the ball, and a pronounced high to low and across follow through, so most slices are quite floating. At least it sounds and looks like that from this position. And I think the coach should directly comment and attend on that.
So why not start instructing her to take the balls a bit earlier, and tell her to have a more closed racket face at impact in order to get a bit more penetrating slice. And step in.
And the heck, most important...up on your toes...wake up, energy!
So, the bits you are not impressed by are the technical elements? It's weird (and a bit like Balla alludes too), that the instant thought on this forum (and in coaching in general) is geared towards the "quality" or lack there of, of the technical information rather than the way the information is delivered.
With regards to your point 1 - does it matter in this specific instance that she is not on her toes and energetic? Is that the goal, or is the goal to have her concentrate very deeply on what she is feeling in the stroke? As you said, this approach is geared towards guided discovery and experiential learning, so would that require deep concentration from the student?
Is this a more effective approach than a directive style?