What's your methodology?

tennis_balla

tennis_balla

Hall of Fame
I will make this sort of a part 2 to my other thread that a started a month or so ago which was about describing talent.

I had the chance to meet Charlie Pasarell a while back, along with many other past legends at the same time. We sat around on a tennis court, picnic chairs and all, drinking beer from a cooler at night talking tennis. The discussion came to which traits to looks for in up and coming players and/or what are the best to have as an up and coming junior wanting to make it on the tour. Ideas were thrown around, but the major agreement was jack of all trades, master of none. A complete player.

My question for the forum is this. If you were given a clean slate with a player, and had a chance to work with a "talented" junior from the very beginning, how would you go about in training them? What would you most focus on? What would be the direction in your methodology? What sort of player(s) would you consider having the most success on the ATP tour? the WTA tour?
What sort of forehand, backhand, serve etc would you teach and why? How much emphasis would you give on the different areas of training? (fitness, mental, technique, tactics) and so on. Would your plan consist of 6 months, a year, 2 years, 4 years planning ahead?

Add things as you wish, but please keep it clean. I'm not interested in trolls and want to keep this discussion informative, fun and light. If you have an agenda, look elsewhere.
 
treblings

treblings

Hall of Fame
let´s say the kid is 6 years. just starting out at tennis.
at that age, some kids already have a distinct advantage, because they come from families who understand the importance of physical activities for
kids.
can the kid throw balls, catch balls, on the run, and so on.
in my experience these kids are usually more concentrated as well.
there is a direct link between the ability of physical coordination and the ability to learn.
till puberty, developing these coordinative skills would be a very important
part of my training.
i would actively encourage the kid to try out other sports to develop physical skills
my ´tennis coaching´would involve different balls, court sizes and playing all kind of games involving all kinds of tactics.
i would very much let the kid find it´s own game and technique, and
only interfere if absolutely necessary.
i would definitely limit the amount of tournaments at a young age(under 10 or 12)
i would praise the kid often, but not for it´s talent or results, but rather
for the effort of training and attitude

so much more to say on the topic but nobody likes long posts, so i stop for now:)
 
HughJars

HughJars

Banned
Subscribed.

In terms of 'moulding' a player into a particular playing style - I don't believe its appropriate for a coach to decide this. Rather, its the role of the coach to identify what playing style would be best suited to their physical, emotional/mental attributes and talents, and then develop and implement the learning pathway accordingly. Same goes for shot type preferences.

As for emphasis on different areas of training, again this is dependent on what attributes are brought to the table, and what playing style is identified as being best suited to these attributes. I think its not appropriate to say 'my methodology is that for any player I will place this amount of emphasis on fitness and this amount of emphasis on developing technique' because its so independent on what is brought to the table in the first place. And a good coach should have the ability to be flexible; to accommodate whatever is brought to them.

But the first place I would start is gauge their intrinsic motivation to succeed. Are they prepared to work hard, dedicate the hours and live and breathe it? Do they persevere on 'bad days' or are they quick to resort to excuses? Without this intrinsic motivation, regardless of how talented they may be in terms of skill, it will always be an uphill battle to achieve their full potential.

Really keen to hear other people's thoughts.

Tennis_balla - what about you, whats your methodology?
 
Last edited:
Maximagq

Maximagq

Banned
Complete player with an emphasis on movement, stamina, strength from the baseline, and the return of serve.

Case study: Novak Djokovic, the best player in the world.
 
Ash_Smith

Ash_Smith

Legend
Ooh, a fun one!

My core philosophy is designed around building "adaptable experts" and is highly athlete centred, but I'm going to need some thinking time in order to best explain how my methodology works in writing!

I'll get back to you :)
 
J

julian

Hall of Fame
Complete failure by Julian

julian said:
Another little subject to ponder- a bit related to your number 1 thread.
McGraw testing of hand dominance and eye dominance.
McGraw is Australian,btw
Click to expand...
I have tried to find a reference about dominance by McGraw.
I am getting something called a circular reference
Very annoying
 
P

pushing_wins

Hall of Fame
Balla you seem to have a real passion for the sport, so why werent your more hardcore as a player? I dont get it

In other words, i think motivation and desire is crucial. having something to prove, chip on the shoulder can be benefical. How does the person react to adversity etc etc. The mental aspect trumps the physical.
 
Last edited:
M

maggmaster

Hall of Fame
tennis_balla said:
I will make this sort of a part 2 to my other thread that a started a month or so ago which was about describing talent.

I had the chance to meet Charlie Pasarell a while back, along with many other past legends at the same time. We sat around on a tennis court, picnic chairs and all, drinking beer from a cooler at night talking tennis. The discussion came to which traits to looks for in up and coming players and/or what are the best to have as an up and coming junior wanting to make it on the tour. Ideas were thrown around, but the major agreement was jack of all trades, master of none. A complete player.

My question for the forum is this. If you were given a clean slate with a player, and had a chance to work with a "talented" junior from the very beginning, how would you go about in training them? What would you most focus on? What would be the direction in your methodology? What sort of player(s) would you consider having the most success on the ATP tour? the WTA tour?
What sort of forehand, backhand, serve etc would you teach and why? How much emphasis would you give on the different areas of training? (fitness, mental, technique, tactics) and so on. Would your plan consist of 6 months, a year, 2 years, 4 years planning ahead?

Add things as you wish, but please keep it clean. I'm not interested in trolls and want to keep this discussion informative, fun and light. If you have an agenda, look elsewhere.
Click to expand...

I have no high level coaching experience but I will take a stab at what this would look like. If I had infinite time, free facilities and a driven student, I would start with the two handed backhand. I don't have a two handed backhand but I do believe that for an early start player this is the only way to go, I would probably also start with a two handed forehand. In my opinion it is easier to teach the removal of the guide hand than it is to correct all the issues from using a one handed forehand without the appropriate strength. I would focus early on the slice serve and work into the topspin and kick serves, flat serves would be taught last. I think a player can develop the service motion with spin serves that will more reliably go in and then translate that motion into a flat serve when the height is there for it to be effective. I would place some emphasis on serve and volley, I think this is an under utilized change up in the men's game and completely non existent in the women's where it actually could be MORE effective. Once stroking mechanics were in place, my coaching would turn towards a more aggressive, find the opportunity to win the point mentality. Fitness would become a part of the daily training at around the age of 10 and progress consistently throughout the playing years, some sort of periodization and short cycle lengths would allow for multiple peaks for tournaments. Beyond this who knows? Lots and lots of hitting practice and point play, structured point play with restrictions and stroke discipline drills.
 
tennis_balla

tennis_balla

Hall of Fame
I don't wanna write out a huge novel. I'll keep this sorta brief and then add more as this thread moves on.

First of all I would avoid soft balls as much as possible. Meaning I would in theory want my students to graduate to hitting with regular balls the sooner the better. I believe that kids balls have a place, definitely, in a young child's development. However in my opinion the time frame set forth by various tennis federations is too long. This has a lot to do with when the child has started playing tennis, and how many times per week they are dedicated to the sport. For once a week'ers the soft balls give them a chance to learn faster/better, however for the ones playing constantly I believe its too long to have U10 tournaments not be allowed to use yellow balls, at least partially/some of them. I might be complete wrong on this, however there is still no hard data which states Play&Stay and other programs are better. We'll hopefully find out in the future. If I am wrong, I have no problem with that.

Tennis is a movement sport. With a young child, develop the contact point and finish first. That's standard stuff. However teaching them how to move on the court is essential. Teaching them from the beginning that they must use their legs to hit a tennis ball and not their hands I believe is a extremely important. Teaching them how to move away from the ball (distance), backwards, forwards, to the side early on and using their feet to set up their contact point and not their hands.
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
In the formative years the bulk of the work would be developing sound technique. My inclination is the lone wolf approach working with different coaches for specific aspects of the child's game while the child lives at home. Not that sending him/her off to a tennis factory wouldn't work, it's just not what I would do.

I would have a plan up to 16 yrs of age and I believe success on the ATP is a combination of innate talent, a strong mind and lots of quality training --though talent & training can trump even a not so strong mind.

"What sort of forehand, backhand, serve etc would you teach and why?" Players have their tendencies and preferences. I would enourage the modern forehand with a semi-western grip which allows for both top spin and fairly flat shots and variety. On the BH side one hand or two hand doesn't matter, success can be had with both and I would go with what feels more natural to the youngster. The serve. The start of the motion can be drawing a curtain(Fed) or going straight up after that I have standard techniques in mind but I would avoid a deep back arch. Above all would be to develop a simple motion.

As part of my lone wolf approach entering the child into many tournaments during the early formative years would not be an emphasis.
 
Last edited:
J

julian

Hall of Fame
Equipment

tennis_balla said:
I don't wanna write out a huge novel. I'll keep this sorta brief and then add more as this thread moves on.

First of all I would avoid soft balls as much as possible. Meaning I would in theory want my students to graduate to hitting with regular balls the sooner the better. I believe that kids balls have a place, definitely, in a young child's development. However in my opinion the time frame set forth by various tennis federations is too long. This has a lot to do with when the child has started playing tennis, and how many times per week they are dedicated to the sport. For once a week'ers the soft balls give them a chance to learn faster/better, however for the ones playing constantly I believe its too long to have U10 tournaments not be allowed to use yellow balls, at least partially/some of them. I might be complete wrong on this, however there is still no hard data which states Play&Stay and other programs are better. We'll hopefully find out in the future. If I am wrong, I have no problem with that.

Tennis is a movement sport. With a young child, develop the contact point and finish first. That's standard stuff. However teaching them how to move on the court is essential. Teaching them from the beginning that they must use their legs to hit a tennis ball and not their hands I believe is a extremely important. Teaching them how to move away from the ball (distance), backwards, forwards, to the side early on and using their feet to set up their contact point and not their hands.
Click to expand...
Google "the effect of equipment scaling"
You will get an abstract of a paper from 2010
 
Ash_Smith

Ash_Smith

Legend
*UPDATED...

Creating "Adaptable Experts"...
A core part of my philosophy is that my job is only done when the athlete no longer needs me, therefore they need to learn and develop the characteristics of an "adaptable expert".

How? By using a constraints based coaching method and encouraging technical self organisation and self awareness. The constraint creates the situation which in turn should lead towards a tactical or technical solution - players must be encouraged to experiment and make mistakes with both critical and positive self reflection (which early on often has to be guided by effective questionning).

This leads to more robust skill acquisition.

Self organisation - the hunan body is excellent at self organisation, our job is to give only the barest details of where it needs to be at what point in time - coaches often make things way more complicated than they need to be. Given a couple of "checkpoints" the brain is more than capable of efficiently and efficiently figuring out what needs to happen to meet them and often does so in a way which will likely lead to less injury and more robust technique.

"Low Hanging Fruit" - I've mentioned this before on here - the only time I will be truly directive is when I see there to be a "quick win" or a potentially "mission critical" failure. This is usually during a competition phase when we don't have the time to build a constraints based adaptation, so a quick key word or direction can have a massive, albeit potentially short term impact.

"Super Strengths" - I am a big believer in working to turn strengths into "super-strengths" rather than always focussing on weakness. Again, the "mission critical failure" rule comes into play - if a weakness could cause a major breakdown in competition then we have to work on it, if it is solid enough then we will likely look to develop a/some super strengths.

I have various training methods/tools that underpin all of the above - i'm a big fan of variability of training, distributed practice and of using constraints to exaggerate rather than solve problems.

It's taken me about 16 years to arrive at this point, am I an elite coach - not sure I know what an "elite coach" is, but i'm pretty damn good - and yet i'm still not where I want to be, so the only option is to keep getting better #betterneverstops

Will probably add to this when I think a bit more :)
 
Last edited:
tennis_balla

tennis_balla

Hall of Fame
Ash, with your comment regarding adaptable experts, what I find amazing is how many players (adults and juniors) just show up to lessons and expect answers to be given to them. They show up with a lights are on but no ones home mentality, and without even giving the coach much background information and expect quick results.

On the other hand its the coaches fault for not asking more questions before a first lesson starts with a player, among other things. It's a two-way street. I've noticed this a lot with juniors, how they expect all the answers given to them to what they are doing wrong and have trouble figuring things out on their own, because they were taught that way from the beginning. Which is a critical mistake because in tournaments these players are completely lost.
I've used this example before on here, but when I started bringing only 8-12 balls on the court and did lessons this way, I found so much more collaboration from the players. They got so used to having 70+ balls in the bucket with their other coaches. Miss 4 backhands in a row, no problem coach will just get some more balls.
 
M

maggmaster

Hall of Fame
Multiball training, a table tennis term but this still applies, is valuable if and only if the player is focused on improvement and has a distaste for errors. Missing needs to be negative feedback and many juniors just don't seem to get that. When you reduce the number of balls, chasing the balls becomes the negative reinforcement, strengthening the feedback loop.
 
Ash_Smith

Ash_Smith

Legend
tennis_balla said:
Ash, with your comment regarding adaptable experts, what I find amazing is how many players (adults and juniors) just show up to lessons and expect answers to be given to them. They show up with a lights are on but no ones home mentality, and without even giving the coach much background information and expect quick results.
Click to expand...

I think a lot of this stems from some (the majority???) of coaches being ego driven and, perhaps subconsciously, creating an athlete-coach dependancy. As I said earlier, for me my job is only done when the athlete no longer needs me, if I were ego driven I wouldn't be striving to create that situation - highly directive coaching creates dependancy as it doesn't ever require the athlete to actually think for themselves.
 
LakeSnake

LakeSnake

Professional
Ash_Smith said:
I think a lot of this stems from some (the majority???) of coaches being ego driven and, perhaps subconsciously, creating an athlete-coach dependancy. As I said earlier, for me my job is only done when the athlete no longer needs me, if I were ego driven I wouldn't be striving to create that situation - highly directive coaching creates dependancy as it doesn't ever require the athlete to actually think for themselves.
Click to expand...

Ash, this is an admirable philosophy, but, I would think, rare. Most instructors make their bread on weekly lessons, and if their students became independent, would lose their income stream. It meshes with the average student's desire for magic bullets and distaste for expending energy on awareness and receptivity.
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
I'm curious to hear about these methods and the estimated costs you charge. You said might be an elite coach. Have any of your players made it to the ATP level?

Ash_Smith said:
I have various training methods/tools that underpin all of the above - i'm a big fan of variability of training, distributed practice and of using constraints to exaggerate rather than solve problems.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Ash_Smith

Ash_Smith

Legend
heninfan99 said:
I'm curious to hear about these methods and the estimated costs you charge.
Click to expand...

I've mentioned a couple in training variability, distributed practice and constraints led training. On top of this framework I use a fair amount of psychology and questioning techniques, but these are unique to each situation.

As for fee's, I no longer undertake any private work as I work in a national programme - but if I did do private work I would be very, very expensive ;)
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Any drills or specifics you can share?

Ash_Smith said:
I've mentioned a couple in training variability, distributed practice and constraints led training. On top of this framework I use a fair amount of psychology and questioning techniques, but these are unique to each situation.

As for fee's, I no longer undertake any private work as I work in a national programme - but if I did do private work I would be very, very expensive ;)
Click to expand...
 
Ash_Smith

Ash_Smith

Legend
^^^Everything I do is very situation specific, so there is nothing generic I can share, other than the basic framework of constraints led, distributed, variable practice.

I don't really have set drills or anything like like - everything is built bespoke to create a certain situation.
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Are you hands-on? Do you feed balls? Can you take me through, say, feeding forehands and how you would apply some of these abstract ideas in a real context?


Ash_Smith said:
^^^Everything I do is very situation specific, so there is nothing generic I can share, other than the basic framework of constraints led, distributed, variable practice.

I don't really have set drills or anything like like - everything is built bespoke to create a certain situation.
Click to expand...
 
Ash_Smith

Ash_Smith

Legend
^^^Do I feed balls?

Yes, as and when the situation necessitates. I prefer to keep as close to the game situation as possible, so I will try and do as much work 'live' as is possible.

Remember though, by and large I am working with elite athletes, were I working with new players I would likely control the situations more using single feeds.

As I said, I can't really take you through "feeding forehands" because every situation is different and therefore requires a different practice to build an adaptation. As a simple example though, let's say the player is often late at contact - the traditional approach would have you telling them to meet the ball earlier, prepare earlier, swing earlier, shorten the swing etc etc. A constraints led approach might have you rally with them with the constraint being they cannot step behind the baseline - it is up to them to then figure out how to make protect their contact. This would then be debriefed using some form of questioning system and I also like to have the athlete select a way of measuring their success in the given task (I actually have them decide what success looks like too) - so that forms part of the debrief.

This can be repeated as needed, either adding or changing the constraint until a desired adaptation is realised.
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Well, that's interesting. I would go in another direction for the formative years of my little prodigy but thanks for sharing.

Ash_Smith said:
^^^Do I feed balls?

Yes, as and when the situation necessitates. I prefer to keep as close to the game situation as possible, so I will try and do as much work 'live' as is possible.

Remember though, by and large I am working with elite athletes, were I working with new players I would likely control the situations more using single feeds.

As I said, I can't really take you through "feeding forehands" because every situation is different and therefore requires a different practice to build an adaptation. As a simple example though, let's say the player is often late at contact - the traditional approach would have you telling them to meet the ball earlier, prepare earlier, swing earlier, shorten the swing etc etc. A constraints led approach might have you rally with them with the constraint being they cannot step behind the baseline - it is up to them to then figure out how to make protect their contact. This would then be debriefed using some form of questioning system and I also like to have the athlete select a way of measuring their success in the given task (I actually have them decide what success looks like too) - so that forms part of the debrief.

This can be repeated as needed, either adding or changing the constraint until a desired adaptation is realised.
Click to expand...
 
Ash_Smith

Ash_Smith

Legend
MethodTennis said:
I love this, having them tell me where a shot needs to land to be regarded as a success...

Its better for discovery and learning having second bounce imo. Thoughts ash?
Click to expand...

Not only for targets, but actually as part of any coaching intervention - it can really help those with an outcome focus learn to be more process focussed. The number of times I have had an athlete determine that success is doing xxx and then be hacked off with themselves because they have missed a ball or similar at the end of the drill - the outcome focus takes over. A few questions later and they realise that the goal of the drill that they had set themselves was entirely based on the process and they were probably a lot closer to achievement than they thought.

As for your second point above - yes, I like using depth lines or similar for second bounce - can work brilliantly as part of a constraints led approach
 
S

sureshs

Bionic Poster
LakeSnake said:
Most instructors make their bread on weekly lessons, and if their students became independent, would lose their income stream.
Click to expand...

I knew a woman who was taking lessons for 3 years. She would never slice and someone asked her why. She said my coach has determined that I am not ready for it, so I never do it.

There are lots of gullible people like that.

On the other hand, some men are way too skeptical. Earlier this week, I took a lesson and then came across this 4.5 guy from Boston. He was surprised and told me he would never pay for a lesson. If the pro was a much better player than him, he might pay to hit with him, but would never take a lesson from him. He was rather vehement about his beliefs.

There is a strong commercial push to make people take lessons, whether it is tennis, golf, or some other activity. When I read the brochures put out by tourist agencies and businesses connected with tourism, I see an activity packaged as a suggested taking of a lesson or being guided by a "professional" and not as something to be freely explored. Sometimes it is a good thing for safety reasons, other times the pushing of the product is too obvious.
 
Easy Rider

Easy Rider

Professional
I believe that good coach is the one who get the player to the level where hes not needed anymore. (I think Agassi said it)

also, I believe that players make coaches, not the other way around

and about methodology, thats a broad thing to discuss over a board, though i would like to meet some of you guys in person and discuss this topic
 
Ash_Smith

Ash_Smith

Legend
^^^ Fair enough - if you haven't done so, try it with some other aspects of training - it can give quite a surprising insight into the way some players think :)
 
treblings

treblings

Hall of Fame
tennis_balla said:
I don't wanna write out a huge novel. I'll keep this sorta brief and then add more as this thread moves on.

First of all I would avoid soft balls as much as possible. Meaning I would in theory want my students to graduate to hitting with regular balls the sooner the better. I believe that kids balls have a place, definitely, in a young child's development. However in my opinion the time frame set forth by various tennis federations is too long. This has a lot to do with when the child has started playing tennis, and how many times per week they are dedicated to the sport. For once a week'ers the soft balls give them a chance to learn faster/better, however for the ones playing constantly I believe its too long to have U10 tournaments not be allowed to use yellow balls, at least partially/some of them. I might be complete wrong on this, however there is still no hard data which states Play&Stay and other programs are better. We'll hopefully find out in the future. If I am wrong, I have no problem with that.

Tennis is a movement sport. With a young child, develop the contact point and finish first. That's standard stuff. However teaching them how to move on the court is essential. Teaching them from the beginning that they must use their legs to hit a tennis ball and not their hands I believe is a extremely important. Teaching them how to move away from the ball (distance), backwards, forwards, to the side early on and using their feet to set up their contact point and not their hands.
Click to expand...

using soft balls should be a tool for coaches to use. obviously depends on many factors, like the ones you mentioned or physical development as well.
i know some under10 kids who play predominantly with normal balls but are not allowed here to compete in tournaments using normal balls and the whole court.
one rule is not good for everybody here.
on the other hand, i wonder if playing u10 tournaments is really that good for kids. the focus for me would be to work on longtime goals rather than develping u10 champions.
also, as a side note, i believe that the u10 court is too small. it´s long enough but not wide enough. just my opinion
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Lansdorp Philosophy (I would most likely take my little prodigy to this man to learn ground strokes)

1) Consistency
2) Placement
3) Power

I also believe in:

4) Repetition, repetition
5) Muscle memory

Start hitting the ball harder and flatter at a young age so you get confidence. It will work if you have talent and good timing.

Repetition is crucial. Hitting the same ball over and over. It does not happen much in this country. It is all groups, to make more money, and that is the only reason, and playing points. Does not do it.

All champions have discipline and are very coachable. That's why they can become great at a young age. Tracy Austin winning the US Open at 16 - yes 16 years old - Sampras winning the Open at 19. Sharapova winning Wimbledon at 17 and Davenport winning the Swiss Open at 16. It took Lindsay a little longer because of conditioning- With discipline you can improve your concentration and your focus. We have an expression in Holland: "If you don't want to listen, you have to feel." Very simple, if you don't do what you're told, you get a spanking. Worked for me. I will not spank the kids, however I will give them 20, 30, or 100 at the baseline. They will listen quickly, cause they don't want to feel like puking. But to me its simple - Just do what I tell you!! One more thing.

A very important part of becoming a champion is timing. If your timing is off it will always be off and has to do with your eyes. Timing is crucial. The last thing is: The desire of the kid - Winning is everything and the love to compete. To play without FEAR. Know that your shots will work, because you have done it a thousand times while I put the pressure on you constantly. Like I said, play without fear. Failing does not enter your mind. Never!
 
Last edited:
tennis_balla

tennis_balla

Hall of Fame
heninfan99,

As much as I like and respect Lansdorp and I mean that, I don't believe he's ever developed someone from complete scratch. He's gotten already discovered "talented" players and developed them further.

Now some people will look at this as a negative. However in my experience I don't see this as so. For example, right now I know my strengths are working with juniors in the 10-11 to 16 yr old age category. I feel most comfortable there and I enjoy it the most as well. Other coaches are great with the little ankle biters, others can only coach adults. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. No coach can do it all, and never will.

Now going back to Lansdorp, I would introduce him to a player aged 10 and above as I think thats where a lot of his success (from my understanding) has come with his past students. The guy is outspoken, some may not like him or agree with him but tennis needs people such as Robert.

In terms of philosophy, here is a question for people out there. If you had a son/daughter who you felt was talented. Would you rather have them train with a coach who's all cutting edge, possibly unproven teaching methods (although still teaching modern technique, just his approach in teaching) or someone using more tried and true methods like Lansdorp mentioned above?
 
5263

5263

G.O.A.T.
Start them out young in Soccer and martial arts, while learning to throw the foot ball long and introducing MTM technique with the gradient.
 
Last edited:
tennis_balla

tennis_balla

Hall of Fame
5263 said:
Start them out young in Soccer and martial arts, while learning the throw the foot ball long and introducing MTM technique.
Click to expand...

Definitely agree with doing multiple sports when they are young, then let them choose and narrow it down.
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
I just love Lansdorp's approach. He wouldn't be the only coach I would use if money was no object though. Sampras started working with him at age 10. Sampras has stated "Lansdorp gave me my forehand". I would be looking for Lansdorp help my little prodigy to develop exceptional ground strokes that hold up under pressure. Repetition, discipline, concise direction --that's music to my ears.

I found Ash's method interesting but too much time would be wasted on a very young student, IMO. Also, we can't deny, Lansdorp gave some of the best players in the world killer strokes. I personally like such concrete results when hiring someone rather than trying a new experimental method.

Again for a talented youngster, repetition, discipline, concise direction.

Before the ages of 8-10 I have another coach/method in mind. Sampras had multiple coaches with different specialties and this is how I would work in my lone wolf approach.

tennis_balla said:
heninfan99,

As much as I like and respect Lansdorp and I mean that, I don't believe he's ever developed someone from complete scratch. He's gotten already discovered "talented" players and developed them further.

Now some people will look at this as a negative. However in my experience I don't see this as so. For example, right now I know my strengths are working with juniors in the 10-11 to 16 yr old age category. I feel most comfortable there and I enjoy it the most as well. Other coaches are great with the little ankle biters, others can only coach adults. We all have our strengths and weaknesses. No coach can do it all, and never will.

Now going back to Lansdorp, I would introduce him to a player aged 10 and above as I think thats where a lot of his success (from my understanding) has come with his past students. The guy is outspoken, some may not like him or agree with him but tennis needs people such as Robert.

In terms of philosophy, here is a question for people out there. If you had a son/daughter who you felt was talented. Would you rather have them train with a coach who's all cutting edge, possibly unproven teaching methods (although still teaching modern technique, just his approach in teaching) or someone using more tried and true methods like Lansdorp mentioned above?
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
tennis_balla

tennis_balla

Hall of Fame
5263 said:
Not to mention is his lack of success with ATP or anyone for a decade or so.:(
Click to expand...

Well the same can be said about Macci, or Bollettieri. That's not to say they are worse as a coach than they were 10 or 15 years ago. Most likely they haven't been lucky or blessed to get to work with another Sampras or Sharapova or similar. Luck of the draw I guess.
 
heninfan99

heninfan99

Talk Tennis Guru
Sharapova is still at the top of the game, you may want to think before you post. :)

Plus you're going to find repetition, discipline, concise direction across many successful methods of teaching tennis.

Do share your method beyond the insightful "have them do martial arts".


5263 said:
Not to mention is his lack of success with ATP or anyone for a decade or so.:(
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
Topspin Shot

Topspin Shot

Legend
heninfan99 said:
Of course. What's your method of choice?
Click to expand...

Honestly, whatever seems best for an individual player. My "favorite" (maybe this is the wrong word) method right now is the Spanish method from academies like Sanchez-Casal, simply because they seem to have the best results on the current ATP. If I see something better out there, I'm very open to changing my mind. Also, for girls, I would probably go with something different as they do better hitting flatter and playing more attacking tennis.
 
HughJars

HughJars

Banned
Ash_Smith said:
^^^Everything I do is very situation specific, so there is nothing generic I can share, other than the basic framework of constraints led, distributed, variable practice.

I don't really have set drills or anything like like - everything is built bespoke to create a certain situation.
Click to expand...

A game based approach?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Wegner
Modern Tennis Methodology
2
Replies
79
Views
12K
sureshs
S
weakera
What is the best approach to developing tennis talent?
Replies
26
Views
1K
Cashman
Cashman
J
How to teach tennis successfully?
2
Replies
74
Views
5K
heninfan99
heninfan99
J
how to succesfully teach tennis
Replies
1
Views
501
sureshs
S
A
what's your game plan?
Replies
17
Views
895
Andres
Andres
Top