Game Based Approach To Teaching

[Rambler124]

What do any of you out there know about the Game Based Approach? Any help here would be appreciated. My understanding is that you put players in situations that are more "live" ball oriented teaching? Something that can be translate to "Real" mach experiences so that your movement and strokes adapt well to the real matches we play? Is this correct?

If so does this mean that when starting out the little 10 year olds you let them play game and just instruct them as they learn to rally? No repetition drill feeding?

I'm curious...

Thanks!

[larry10s]

Originally Posted by Rambler124

What do any of you out there know about the Game Based Approach? Any help here would be appreciated. My understanding is that you put players in situations that are more "live" ball oriented teaching? Something that can be translate to "Real" mach experiences so that your movement and strokes adapt well to the real matches we play? Is this correct?

If so does this mean that when starting out the little 10 year olds you let them play game and just instruct them as they learn to rally? No repetition drill feeding?

I'm curious...

Thanks!

this should be helpful http://www.acecoach.com/main/spage/gamebased/

[Rambler124]

Thanks! I think I understand it a bit more. I get what they are saying on that website. Ultimately tennis is a game and tactics are married to technique in that whatever or however you are trying to manipulate the ball in certain situations will call on different types of technique. I assume that this ultimately allows the student to figure some things out on their own and/or allows the coach to support this process by adding different technical components.

I think my question is this. Does a coach ultimately start with tactics in the very first lesson? I always assumed that technique at least at a basic level needed to be understood first to a certain level of competency before you could achieve more of a game based approach. Am I wrong according to this approach?

I'm imagining in my head these tennis lessons with adults or kids with them trying to rally 10 balls in a row with all kinds of messed up disjointed swings that would produce "bad habits" over time if not corrected fairly quickly in the initial stages of learning?

Thoughts?

[Solat]

ignore the name of it and put it into a scientific explanation.

there are two types of basic learning
Process oriented
Task oriented (sometimes called Results oriented)

traditional coaching has been based around process oriented learning, teaching people the process of hitting a ball (technique), learning thru developmental and technical stages to build a stroke(s) then attempting to transplant that into a rally scenario.

GBA is results oriented learning as it challenges students to "teach themselves" (learn) by observing their results in a task and making the appropriate adjustments to improve at said task.

rallying does not need to be stage one but should the first goal of GBA in tennis coaching. To start with you may get students to throw and catch a ball to eachother to simulate a "rally", with young kids they can "rally" by using their racquets to push the ball along the ground to eachother. The goal of these tasks is to put the student into a situation where they need to use tracking, movement and racquet control to succeed at the simulated "rally" this will then positively transfer as learning when they have the racquet control to rally with a partner.

Techniques will hopefully develop to achieve the tasks, and as such tasks should be set to achieve the techniques required. So if you need your student to swing low to high then you set a task where they must hit over a higher net or they need to hit to their partner who must catch the ball above their head. This will allow the student to experiment various ways to achieve the goal, hopefully succeeding with the most appropriate technique.

Undoubtedly this theory is flawed, just go down to any tennis club and watch the huge variety of strokes happening. All these people CAN play a game of tennis but are probably not maximising their potential. Technical input could go a long way to improving these peoples enjoyment of the game.

On the other hand, the fact that they are playing the game means they have succeeded (to some level) in playing (and enjoying) the sport which in GBA reads as a completed goal.

I am living proof that GBA can work, I was not coached as a youth, I taught myself how to play by hitting against a wall until i found techniques that could keep the rally going. I learned topspin and a 2HBH by observing others and thru trial and error until I figured out what worked and what didn't. I serve with a conti grip not because someone taught me but because that was what worked the best.

HOWEVER I am a career tennis coach because I feel I could have been such a better player if I had learned these advanced techniques at an earlier age, if my technical flaws had been corrected by someone before they become ingrained. I want to give others the opportunity I didn't get.

the answer? find the best of every technique available, don't take one ideal as gospel, trial what works best for you and most importantly your students. Some will respond to technical instruction whilst others are overwhelmed, some just really want to feel like they are "playing tennis" not just "hitting balls"

[Nellie]

There is definitely benefits to drills that are applicable to actual game play. However - I think that it would be sales speak to claim that coaches have not been using game-based drills for 100 years. Watch any good player and/or coach, and you will see this, but it is definitely a trap for the casual player.

Good players practice with a purpose:

1) hit mostly crosscourt drills because that is the proper tactical decision; the casual player practices from from the middle of the court, behind the baseline 95% of the time

2) with your crosscourt drills, play out points and practice moving into the court and changing direction on weak/short balls

3) when you are hitting drills, you keep some type of score

4) practice serves and returns of serve more (boring to do!).

[larry10s]

Originally Posted by Solat

ignore the name of it and put it into a scientific explanation.

there are two types of basic learning
Process oriented
Task oriented (sometimes called Results oriented)

traditional coaching has been based around process oriented learning, teaching people the process of hitting a ball (technique), learning thru developmental and technical stages to build a stroke(s) then attempting to transplant that into a rally scenario.

GBA is results oriented learning as it challenges students to "teach themselves" (learn) by observing their results in a task and making the appropriate adjustments to improve at said task.

rallying does not need to be stage one but should the first goal of GBA in tennis coaching. To start with you may get students to throw and catch a ball to eachother to simulate a "rally", with young kids they can "rally" by using their racquets to push the ball along the ground to eachother. The goal of these tasks is to put the student into a situation where they need to use tracking, movement and racquet control to succeed at the simulated "rally" this will then positively transfer as learning when they have the racquet control to rally with a partner.

Techniques will hopefully develop to achieve the tasks, and as such tasks should be set to achieve the techniques required. So if you need your student to swing low to high then you set a task where they must hit over a higher net or they need to hit to their partner who must catch the ball above their head. This will allow the student to experiment various ways to achieve the goal, hopefully succeeding with the most appropriate technique.

Undoubtedly this theory is flawed, just go down to any tennis club and watch the huge variety of strokes happening. All these people CAN play a game of tennis but are probably not maximising their potential. Technical input could go a long way to improving these peoples enjoyment of the game.

On the other hand, the fact that they are playing the game means they have succeeded (to some level) in playing (and enjoying) the sport which in GBA reads as a completed goal.

I am living proof that GBA can work, I was not coached as a youth, I taught myself how to play by hitting against a wall until i found techniques that could keep the rally going. I learned topspin and a 2HBH by observing others and thru trial and error until I figured out what worked and what didn't. I serve with a conti grip not because someone taught me but because that was what worked the best.

HOWEVER I am a career tennis coach because I feel I could have been such a better player if I had learned these advanced techniques at an earlier age, if my technical flaws had been corrected by someone before they become ingrained. I want to give others the opportunity I didn't get.

the answer? find the best of every technique available, don't take one ideal as gospel, trial what works best for you and most importantly your students. Some will respond to technical instruction whilst others are overwhelmed, some just really want to feel like they are "playing tennis" not just "hitting balls"

EXCELENT POST. BRAVO!!

[5263]

Originally Posted by Solat

HOWEVER I am a career tennis coach because I feel I could have been such a better player if I had learned these advanced techniques at an earlier age, if my technical flaws had been corrected by someone before they become ingrained. I want to give others the opportunity I didn't get.

the answer? find the best of every technique available, don't take one ideal as gospel, trial what works best for you and most importantly your students. Some will respond to technical instruction whilst others are overwhelmed, some just really want to feel like they are "playing tennis" not just "hitting balls"

Very nice post!

[Bungalo Bill]

Originally Posted by Rambler124

What do any of you out there know about the Game Based Approach? Any help here would be appreciated. My understanding is that you put players in situations that are more "live" ball oriented teaching? Something that can be translate to "Real" mach experiences so that your movement and strokes adapt well to the real matches we play? Is this correct?

If so does this mean that when starting out the little 10 year olds you let them play game and just instruct them as they learn to rally? No repetition drill feeding?

I'm curious...

Thanks!

You have to have balance in your teaching. For players playing matches, definetly mix in game-like drills. However, during those times you are teaching tactics to improve their chances to win a point. You are also keeping an eye on technique and footwork for future drills and exercises. It is a combination to help improve a player in match-like situations.

Federer to this day works on his footwork, stroke fundamentals, and his conditioning. If younger players are ready for game-like drills, do it.

However the balance may be swayed towards developing their strength, coordination, and technique.

One of the best ways to use the game approach is to work on the weaknesses that you noted or tracked during a real match. That way you make the game approach style to instruction more specific and beneficial.

[namui]

As I know of, GBA needs intensive guidance from the coach in order to shape up the technique, not just let the student figure out things all by themselves. An issue about technique will always have to be established so that in every playing (learning session), there is a technical improvement.

In fact, it's harder on the coach than the typical "technique-first" teaching. Coach has to try to maximize each individual student potential without presuming what's right or wrong for the student.
Tough work.

[JISTUINS]

We've found the GBA very useful especially in teaching doubles play, since doubles is very much a position game in terms of both the position of the ball and the position of the players. Especially, the one-back one-front formation, since the two-up formation is more quick hands as compared. And GBA has worked for us well when coupled with some additional drills designed for certain patterns.