Cindysphinx
G.O.A.T.
Essential Tennis had a podcast that listed five signs you're taking a bad tennis lesson (assuming the goal of the lesson is to improve). I agree on some, but, well . . . I think he's off the mark on a couple of them. They are:
1. Lesson tries to address a bunch of different problems rather than focusing on one.
2. Lesson focuses on one stroke, but tries to deal with too many elements of the stroke.
3. Lesson focuses on quantity, not quality, of balls hit.
4. Pro doesn't give the player homework to do after the lesson.
5. Pro doesn't use video analysis.
Yes, I agree completely with points 1, 2, and 3.
For point 4, well . . . I'm the student and I was there, so I know what we worked on. Why does the pro need to tell me to remember to follow through when we just worked on follow-through for an hour? If I plan to practice and don't know how, I can always ask, right?
For point 5, I disagree strongly. Yes, video analysis is awesome and very helpful. But it is also not possible for many pros, as pros and clubs may not have the equipment (ball machine or video equipment set-up) needed for this. Is it possible to get a good, helpful, solid lesson that helps a rec player address a problem and make progress without video analysis? If so, how does the failure or inability to use video analysis mean the lesson should be labeled as "bad."
I wonder if there is something that makes a better point 5. I might nominate "too much emphasis on targets too early." In other words, if the student is using horrible mechanics to hit balls toward cones, it's a bad lesson.
1. Lesson tries to address a bunch of different problems rather than focusing on one.
2. Lesson focuses on one stroke, but tries to deal with too many elements of the stroke.
3. Lesson focuses on quantity, not quality, of balls hit.
4. Pro doesn't give the player homework to do after the lesson.
5. Pro doesn't use video analysis.
Yes, I agree completely with points 1, 2, and 3.
For point 4, well . . . I'm the student and I was there, so I know what we worked on. Why does the pro need to tell me to remember to follow through when we just worked on follow-through for an hour? If I plan to practice and don't know how, I can always ask, right?
For point 5, I disagree strongly. Yes, video analysis is awesome and very helpful. But it is also not possible for many pros, as pros and clubs may not have the equipment (ball machine or video equipment set-up) needed for this. Is it possible to get a good, helpful, solid lesson that helps a rec player address a problem and make progress without video analysis? If so, how does the failure or inability to use video analysis mean the lesson should be labeled as "bad."
I wonder if there is something that makes a better point 5. I might nominate "too much emphasis on targets too early." In other words, if the student is using horrible mechanics to hit balls toward cones, it's a bad lesson.
Last edited: