Good Coaching...

[Ash_Smith]

As I have referenced in a couple of threads recently I am doing a lot of work/research into the most effective coaching practices, specifically around the generic coaching skills rather than sports specific ones. The end goal being to make myself a better coach by having a better understanding of the principals of coaching.

So, with that in mind...is this good coaching?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfcGkC83oY

Please remember, whatever your opinions on RL's technical knowledge, to judge objectively on the style, manor and delivery of his coaching (oh, and ignore all the waffle in the middle about singles sticks )

So - good coaching?

Cheers

[tennis_balla]

I've seen this video before and actually like his delivery however I think the kids is a bit clueless as to what RL is really trying to say, I think its a bit above him but he will eventually get it which is fine. He'll do as RL tells him but won't grasp the whole concept, full meaning of whats being taught until later on but that happens often.

What I like is that, like him or not, RL has his own way of coaching and even though he may seem to come across as arrogant to some or opinionated he stands by his beliefs and demands discipline from his students which I think is great.
This is a good example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tvLgGkpFotA

I think this is lacking in a lot of coaching these days. Its more of an old school method but I believe from the way a lot of junior players act on court, be it in tournaments or training that discipline and respect is really lacking.
I think you gotta show the players you mean business and are not there to **** away time. You can have fun, enjoy yourself but theres a time to work and listen and learn. Robert to me puts out an image on the court that he's someone you don't half *** around with and if you do he won't be afraid to let you know. This in turn will show greater respect from the player and add a bit of distance where its needed to keep the player/coach relationship honest and professional.

[julian]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

As I have referenced in a couple of threads recently I am doing a lot of work/research into the most effective coaching practices, specifically around the generic coaching skills rather than sports specific ones. The end goal being to make myself a better coach by having a better understanding of the principals of coaching.

So, with that in mind...is this good coaching?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfcGkC83oY

Please remember, whatever your opinions on RL's technical knowledge, to judge objectively on the style, manor and delivery of his coaching (oh, and ignore all the waffle in the middle about singles sticks )

So - good coaching?

Cheers

How can one understand a concept without defining a concept?
What in hell is "an USTA shot"?
What about all my responses to your posts in other threads?

[TCF]

================================================== ==

[mightyrick]

Tim Gallwey's approach to coaching resonates strongly with me. The "Inner Game of Tennis".

He's the only documented coach I've seen who teaches the student how to properly view their own learning. Dealing with the mental side. Also, though he taught fundamentals, he also allowed the student's natural physical/mental tendencies to develop into a game suited to that student. I think this is powerful.

Also, the approach of the coach not saying a whole lot. I like that, too.

[slowfox]

Pretty much he's telling the student to hit the ball at the height level he demonstrated with his racquet. Instead of just saying "two feet over the net", the visual helps more. So I think it's good coaching. Not sure if the kid understood what the USTA-Academy ball is though.

[10isfreak]

I'll give you a general pointer that you're unlikely to see coaches talk about or even use themselves -- although it would help them become better coaches.

Once, I was on a court and the mother a 5 years old tried to explain to him how to hit and move on a court. She emphasized the importance of the ready position, telling the kid not to set up for a forehand or a backhand until he knew that one or the other would come. What struck me wasn't so much the content than the form. She was literally making an argument, justifying it on the basis that setting up would, provided a wrong side-selection, cause the kid trouble.

If you didn't get where's the problem yet, there's a problem with your coaching. The form of the mother's speech was basically deductive: if A, then B. This sort of hypothetical scenario in which some application yields a conditional results relies unto a propositional logic, which is part of formal operations, not concrete operations and formal operations are not possible before puberty... The kid cannot possibly make sense out of a deductive argument.

How to solve the problem? Easy: put the kid in a concrete situation where the conditions makes your argument possible. That is, instead of mentally hypothesizing a ball to the forehand when he's set up for a backhand (or vice-versa), literally make that situation happen: send him a ball on the wrong side every time he sets up too early.


The take homes? Adapt your speech to your audience and instead of focusing on what you say, focus on what the audience members get out of your speech.

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

As I have referenced in a couple of threads recently I am doing a lot of work/research into the most effective coaching practices, specifically around the generic coaching skills rather than sports specific ones. The end goal being to make myself a better coach by having a better understanding of the principals of coaching.

So, with that in mind...is this good coaching?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpfcGkC83oY

Please remember, whatever your opinions on RL's technical knowledge, to judge objectively on the style, manor and delivery of his coaching (oh, and ignore all the waffle in the middle about singles sticks )

So - good coaching?

Cheers

Ash, I would say this is effective coaching. May not be perfect. But for that young age you don't have to explain why..you need to tell what to do. In this case he is telling the kid to start practicing to hit the ball two feet above the net MOST of the time. In another video he says he is not against USTA ball or academy ball, but most of the time hit hard and deep and flat.

He is known for this kind of thing and it has worked.

In the latest interview Federer said after all these years of just doing WHAT his trainer,fitness guy asked him to do, he is able to understand the WHY part. So.. It takes time to understand..

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by mightyrick

Also, the approach of the coach not saying a whole lot. I like that, too.

Agreed - I genuinely feel more learning takes place (by both parties) when the coach speaks less than the pupil!

Originally Posted by 10isfreak

The take homes? Adapt your speech to your audience and instead of focusing on what you say, focus on what the audience members get out of your speech.

Again agreed, so does RL do that in this instance?

There's a very interesting paper (at least to me ) by Frode Moen, Norwegian University of Science and Technology and Kristin Garland, University of Minnesota on the "Subjective Beliefs Among Sport Coaches About Communication During Practice", which touches on this very point - how the receiver of the message will decode the message according their own subjective version of "reality". Only through very good active listening can the coach figure out the individual athlete's reality and tailor their messages accordingly.

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

Ash, I would say this is effective coaching. May not be perfect. But for that young age you don't have to explain why..you need to tell what to do. In this case he is telling the kid to start practicing to hit the ball two feet above the net MOST of the time. In another video he says he is not against USTA ball or academy ball, but most of the time hit hard and deep and flat.

As I said, I'm not worried about the technical content, more so the delivery and effectiveness of the learning. You say this is effective coaching? How so? How many times does the coach see the desired result in the pupil - how many times, once practice starts, does he say "too high" "not that high" "don't hit that high" etc etc. Was his coaching intervention actually effective?

Don't get me wrong, I'm not ragging on RL, he's had great success doing what he does and I agree with Balla, and give him a lot of respect for sticking to his guns and defining his methodology. He just happens to be in the first clip I came across where a coach has a very distinct "style"

Cheers

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by julian

What about all my responses to your posts in other threads?

Sorry Julian, I will endeavour to reply!

[TCF]

==========================

[Ash_Smith]

^^^Great questions raised TCF! So is a good/great coach only defined by the success of his/her athletes? Were a coach like RL more flexible in his delivery or coaching style (not necessarily his game philosophy), would he experience more success (i.e. instead of 10/1000's success ratio could his ratio be 100's/1000's)

Like I sad though, it could have been any coach with that style of delivery, I don't want this to turn into a specific Lansdorp debate, only whether that style of delivery is effective and could constitute good coaching?

Cheers

[oldhacker]

Ash - I did not think that was great coaching considering it was directed at a 7 year old kid. When coaching kids that age (in fact this applies to all ages) I try to keep the talking down and the demonstration up and I get the kids to realise for themselves what is going on by asking questions at appropriate times. Kids learn by seeing what to do and how to do it not being told. The coach did not demonstrate any of the shots he was talking about. Even in his endless speech he seemed to assume knowledge of what he meant by USTA, Academy, Lansdorp shots. It got better once the kid started hitting as his feedback was pretty good.

[julian]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

Sorry Julian, I will endeavour to reply!

http://tt.tennis-warehouse.com/showt...=453860&page=5
#100 would be a good candidate to start

[julian]

Originally Posted by oldhacker

Ash - I did not think that was great coaching considering it was directed at a 7 year old kid. When coaching kids that age (in fact this applies to all ages) I try to keep the talking down and the demonstration up and I get the kids to realise for themselves what is going on by asking questions at appropriate times. Kids learn by seeing what to do and how to do it not being told. The coach did not demonstrate any of the shots he was talking about. Even in his endless speech he seemed to assume knowledge of what he meant by USTA, Academy, Lansdorp shots. It got better once the kid started hitting as his feedback was pretty good.

I am NOT 7 years old but I do NOT know what an USTA shot is.
Can someone help me before I die TOMORROW?

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by julian

I am NOT 7 years old but I do NOT know what an USTA shot is.
Can someone help me before I die TOMORROW?

Julian, in Landsdorp's world there are three types of balls from a net clearance perspective ( height of the ball that clears the net ). He drives his students to hit balls with a max 2 feet net clearance most of the time. then he calls USTA ball which is hit with a 5-6 feet net clearance. Then he calls the ACADEMY ball which is hit with more than 6 feet net clearance. all this is during a rally mode. basically his technique is drive the ball as hard as possible flat and deep. you do the USTA or academy ball only when you are defensive.

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

^^^Great questions raised TCF! So is a good/great coach only defined by the success of his/her athletes? Were a coach like RL more flexible in his delivery or coaching style (not necessarily his game philosophy), would he experience more success (i.e. instead of 10/1000's success ratio could his ratio be 100's/1000's)

Like I sad though, it could have been any coach with that style of delivery, I don't want this to turn into a specific Lansdorp debate, only whether that style of delivery is effective and could constitute good coaching?

Cheers

So Ash, if we take this in more general terms, in a college in a math Algebra class where there are 30 students sitting, does the teacher adapt the delivery of his teaching to meet 30 different students learning style?
why should this be any different in tennis when teaching the BASIC things?

I fully agree coaches most of the time take undue credit for the students success.

[julian]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

So Ash, if we take this in more general terms, in a college in a math Algebra class where there are 30 students sitting, does the teacher adapt the delivery of his teaching to meet 30 different students learning style?
why should this be any different in tennis when teaching the BASIC things?

I fully agree coaches most of the time take undue credit for the students success.

The comparison is good and flawed at the same time.
It is flawed because for this particular case we had ONLY ONE student
for a tennis lesson with RL

[marosmith]

I think Landsdorp is a much needed breath of fresh air in a tennis world where there is a monolithic style of teaching led by the "academy" style. I would love to take a lesson or two from him and learn how to flatten out my darn forehand!

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by tennisfan69

So Ash, if we take this in more general terms, in a college in a math Algebra class where there are 30 students sitting, does the teacher adapt the delivery of his teaching to meet 30 different students learning style?
why should this be any different in tennis when teaching the BASIC things?

My counter would be in your example of a maths class (that's right, it's Maths ) would be firstly, that is "teaching" and not "coaching" (before anyone asks, IMO teaching is the sharing of knowledge, the coaching is bringing about a permanent change of behaviour) and secondly, yes a good "teacher" should vary their delivery to meet the needs of their class. That might not mean 30 different styles, but it should mean explaining concepts in maybe 2 or 3 different ways to help ensure all major learning styles are covered.

To answer "why should this be any different in tennis when teaching the BASIC things" - the answer is simple, because it is much, much more effective coaching!

Cheers