Good Coaching...

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by 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!

But, in this case, did he actually teach the pupil "how to flatten out his forehand"? I don't recall actually seeing any "coaching" take place - only a lot of talk and a lot of negative reinforcement during the practice?

Cheers

[tennisfan69]

Originally Posted by Ash_Smith

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

Agree, but in particular this video is only a part of the lesson right? we dont have the full video on whether he coached on how to flatten out.. for full disclosure i have met RL and have taken numerous lessons for my players.. he actually explains pretty good. the thing is I am one of the remaining 9990 students who didnt get like the 10 students who got it part and had their own natural skills to make it to the top. but his lessons are pretty intense and there will be permanent change after long periods of time..

[TCF]

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

[BevelDevil]

Throughout the whole video I was wondering how much the kid understood of what RL was saying. I had the feeling the kid didn't really understand a lot and just sort of nodded his head.

This is the downside of having a coach with an aura of supreme authority; students will tend to hide their confusion more. Of course, I could be wrong and the kid is highly technically knowledgeable, I don't know.

The father seemed to get it and be really impressed, though, and he's paying the bills and is probably working closely with the kid. So perhaps RL was talking to the parents just as much as the kid. Which makes sense (especially business sense...)

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by TCF

No tennis coach is, you do the best with the player you are presented with.

So, does this mean you keep your "style" and hope that it works for the player you have with you and accept that it won't work for the majority, but one or two may come through (or more depending on the market where you live). Or, as an alternative, do you try to tailor your "style" and delivery to the individual and maybe give each individual a better chance of reaching their potential?

Could RL have had more successful players had he the ability to tailor his delivery?

Cheers

[tommyfr]

He explains there are 3 kind of shots, and the lower one is the right one in most situations and the one Perry should practice.

But during this one minute intro it is only he talking, no question to the boy, or better socratic questions....

Then after the interruptions with the parents, on net sticks, and his story about Tracy Austins sister or whatever, they start to feed and hit.

During the hitting he keeps on giving feedback to the boy, and that is very good. He mentions hitting lower and he mentions hitting harder for example. And he mix it up by asking the boy to hit some Academy balls, just to get feel for the difference. Very smart.

After some 30=40 balls or so they meet at net and he demonstrate a more firm swinging pattern vs a floppy wrist at takeback and at contact.

So he has a GOAL with the exercise. He gives a lot of good feeding balls, same speed and same height, so good REPETITION can take place, and intuitive adjustment/learning. He MONITORS the strokes and give FEEDBACK during the hitting. He summarizes and concludes at the end what to think of in the future, the essentials of efficient forehand stroke mechanics.

So Very Good, isn't it?

[thecode]

Originally Posted by tommyfr

He explains there are 3 kind of shots, and the lower one is the right one in most situations and the one Perry should practice.

And is that instruction correct? Does anyone agree that the most common ground stroke you need and use where they were practicing behind the baseline is low over the net, flat, and hard like that?

[tommyfr]

i actually didnt mean to say that I agreed with RL proposition on that (flat is the way). I believe a heavy topspin or windshield wiper has its place, especially among men. And a lot of top ATP players play with big topspin, with a lot of net clearance.

[NLBwell]

Originally Posted by tommyfr

He explains there are 3 kind of shots, and the lower one is the right one in most situations and the one Perry should practice.

But during this one minute intro it is only he talking, no question to the boy, or better socratic questions....

Then after the interruptions with the parents, on net sticks, and his story about Tracy Austins sister or whatever, they start to feed and hit.

During the hitting he keeps on giving feedback to the boy, and that is very good. He mentions hitting lower and he mentions hitting harder for example. And he mix it up by asking the boy to hit some Academy balls, just to get feel for the difference. Very smart.

After some 30=40 balls or so they meet at net and he demonstrate a more firm swinging pattern vs a floppy wrist at takeback and at contact.

So he has a GOAL with the exercise. He gives a lot of good feeding balls, same speed and same height, so good REPETITION can take place, and intuitive adjustment/learning. He MONITORS the strokes and give FEEDBACK during the hitting. He summarizes and concludes at the end what to think of in the future, the essentials of efficient forehand stroke mechanics.

So Very Good, isn't it?

I'm in agreement with this. It was hard to hear, but after listening to the hard to understand parts a couple of times it was clear what he was getting at. What I looked at in the end, was whether Perry improved on hitting the ball flatter and lower - which he did. When he did that RL then had him mix in "Academy" balls with the lower balls, reinforcing that the Academy balls are not inherently bad.

What everyone is missing here is that RL is really coaching the (way over-involved) parents. [Singles sticks - really?] The kid sees the visual cues of RL's racket and gets the verbal cues during the hitting, but the words in the explanation are really aimed at the parents. They are the ones who will spend the most time with little Perry on the court and the ones who will spend the most time drilling him on hitting the ball lower and flatter. They are the ones who need the know the whys and wherefores and take that into their practice sessions with him.

Also, since the parents are paying the bills, you want to make them happy and so don't tell them they are psycho to carry around singles sticks to practice sessions. It won't hurt anything and in the meantime tell them a story backing up the reason for Perry developing the flatter stroke. Thus motivating them further to train Perry that way.

[julian]

Originally Posted by NLBwell

I'm in agreement with this. It was hard to hear, but after listening to the hard to understand parts a couple of times it was clear what he was getting at. What I looked at in the end, was whether Perry improved on hitting the ball flatter and lower - which he did. When he did that RL then had him mix in "Academy" balls with the lower balls, reinforcing that the Academy balls are not inherently bad.

What everyone is missing here is that RL is really coaching the (way over-involved) parents. [Singles sticks - really?] The kid sees the visual cues of RL's racket and gets the verbal cues during the hitting, but the words in the explanation are really aimed at the parents. They are the ones who will spend the most time with little Perry on the court and the ones who will spend the most time drilling him on hitting the ball lower and flatter. They are the ones who need the know the whys and wherefores and take that into their practice sessions with him.

Also, since the parents are paying the bills, you want to make them happy and so don't tell them they are psycho to carry around singles sticks to practice sessions. It won't hurt anything and in the meantime tell them a story backing up the reason for Perry developing the flatter stroke. Thus motivating them further to train Perry that way.

Bringing parents to drill is a GAMBLE
It is like bringing foreign teaching assistants to teach computer science courses at STANFORD

[tennis_balla]

Originally Posted by julian

Bringing parents to drill is a GAMBLE
It is like bringing foreign teaching assistants to teach computer science courses at STANFORD

It shouldn't be a gamble. Why would you want to keep parents away from your lessons? One of the biggest complaints I hear being said to me from parents are they have no idea whats going on court with their child when taking lessons from other coaches. They are kept in the dark, and they are paying for it. Not allowed on court, coach never has time to have a talk with them. Just show up, pay, leave. Most just accept thats the way it is, but it shouldn't be. The parents are the ones paying for it, it should be their responsibility to know whats going on and to be involved. How their kids is progressing, their behaviour on court, their work ethic etc etc. If the parents just wanna drop off their kid and turn it into a babysitting session then thats the wrong approach and they shouldn't be giving their child private lessons.

I'm not saying this is what you do Julian, I'm talking in a general sense now of what I've seen coaches do. They piss around, give half *** lessons, ask for a full fee and give the usual BS, "Your son is doing great, he's progressing but it'll take some time." They don't want the parents around and their excuse is because they get too involved in the lessons or distract the kids. Ok cool, so as a coach then assign guidelines while they're on court. I've personally never had any problems in all my years coaching of parents overdoing it on court. How you handle this is up to you. If the parents have at least an average IQ they should get this right away and don't have to be told anything. If not then you're most likely gonna have one hell of a time with them regardless of what you do. You can't fix stupid.

[tennis_balla]

Also, asking about singles sticks is being over involved? Legit question and I think RL should have them. Almost all courts in Europe use them, and its a must at high ranked junior tournaments anyways which if you're paying $300/hr to RL you're wanting to head in that direction with your kid.

[julian]

Originally Posted by tennis_balla

It shouldn't be a gamble. Why would you want to keep parents away from your lessons? One of the biggest complaints I hear being said to me from parents are they have no idea whats going on court with their child when taking lessons from other coaches. They are kept in the dark, and they are paying for it. Not allowed on court, coach never has time to have a talk with them. Just show up, pay, leave. Most just accept thats the way it is, but it shouldn't be. The parents are the ones paying for it, it should be their responsibility to know whats going on and to be involved. How their kids is progressing, their behaviour on court, their work ethic etc etc. If the parents just wanna drop off their kid and turn it into a babysitting session then thats the wrong approach and they shouldn't be giving their child private lessons.

I'm not saying this is what you do Julian, I'm talking in a general sense now of what I've seen coaches do. They piss around, give half *** lessons, ask for a full fee and give the usual BS, "Your son is doing great, he's progressing but it'll take some time." They don't want the parents around and their excuse is because they get too involved in the lessons or distract the kids. Ok cool, so as a coach then assign guidelines while they're on court. I've personally never had any problems in all my years coaching of parents overdoing it on court. How you handle this is up to you. If the parents have at least an average IQ they should get this right away and don't have to be told anything. If not then you're most likely gonna have one hell of a time with them regardless of what you do. You can't fix stupid.

I was talking about parents RUNNING Drills by themselves sometime in future
It is more or less-how to teach PARENTS to teach?
OR how to coach MORE JUNIOR Coaches to coach?
Ash Smith knows more
I was partially misunderstood but your topic is interesting as well

[tennis_balla]

Gotcha, sorry.

You mean parents teaching their own kids? So you believe the on-court coaching should only be left up to the coach?

[julian]

Originally Posted by tennis_balla

Gotcha, sorry.

You mean parents teaching their own kids? So you believe the on-court coaching should only be left up to the coach?

We have the following scenario:
Say Perry will take five lessons from RL.
Next parents will move,say,to Bedford,Massachusetts (Lord forbid)-see my signature.
Does it make sense FOR PARENTS to run simple drills with Perry BASED on their OBSERVATIONS
from sessions wilth RL
I have said that chances of success are 50% .I call it a GAMBLE.
One can call it a glass half EMPTY
Take care.

[tennis_balla]

Originally Posted by julian

We have the following scenario:
Say Perry will take five lessons from RL.
Next parents will move,say,to Bedford,Massachusetts (Lord forbid)-see my signature.
Does it make sense FOR PARENTS to run simple drills with Perry BASED on their OBSERVATIONS
from sessions wilth RL
I have said that chances of success are 50% .I call it a GAMBLE.
One can call it a glass half EMPTY
Take care.

Yes it makes sense.

[Mahboob Khan]

I could not see the YouTube video as the YouTube is banned here. I will just comment on "the height over the net".

Just observe the top ATP players:

For example if a Nadal or a Djokovic is hitting from behind the baseline in a baseline rally situation their balls travel over the net by at least 5 to 6 feet and in some cases more.

However, when they have to pass then they keep their passing shots low .. may be 1-3 feet over the net.

In case of winners from the mid-court they keep their balls around 2 feet over the net.

Yes, in a coaching session, if you are teaching how to hit high with topspin then the Coach may establish certain parameters. In order to teach height (topspin) try the following drill:

Height/Topspin Drill:

Place chairs on the opposite side service line.

Feed balls from the basket and tell your student that his shots should clear the chairs and land inside the baseline.

Obviously, this drill is good for those players who often hit the net with their shots.

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by julian

I was talking about parents RUNNING Drills by themselves sometime in future
It is more or less-how to teach PARENTS to teach?
Ash Smith knows more
I was partially misunderstood but your topic is interesting as well

The parents job is to Parent. The coaches job is to coach. Never the two shall mix (at least in my opinion)

Cheers

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by thecode

And is that instruction correct? Does anyone agree that the most common ground stroke you need and use where they were practicing behind the baseline is low over the net, flat, and hard like that?

Originally Posted by tommyfr

i actually didnt mean to say that I agreed with RL proposition on that (flat is the way). I believe a heavy topspin or windshield wiper has its place, especially among men. And a lot of top ATP players play with big topspin, with a lot of net clearance.

Sorry, I though I made the point earlier - this thread is not about the teaching points themselves or whether anybody agrees with them, but rather the manner of delivery and whether that is optimal.

Cheers

[Ash_Smith]

Originally Posted by Mahboob Khan

I could not see the YouTube video as the YouTube is banned here. I will just comment on "the height over the net"...

*Snip*

...Obviously, this drill is good for those players who often hit the net with their shots.

Again, the point is not whether the information is "correct" but whether the manner in which it is delivered is most effective.

Cheers