Is tennis taught the wrong way?

[CoachingMastery]

Bad coach is a bad coach. Most of them just feed balls and just take money from you. Some of them make you run for your life on feeds but nobody is trying to change the basic technique. And that is stealing, I can do ball feeding with my friends.

Most nobody of coaches I've seen is willing to change technique of an adult rec player. One coach said that he will not change my technique unless I take multiple sessions each week. Gimme a break! I'm NOT a future pro athlete so I'm not ought to be willing to waste that much money.

No more of that chit with me, I've learned and developed way more by watching my own videos. "Coaches" can do their stealing stuff as much as they like, I'm not part of that.

I can see why you have the opinion about coaching if your experiences consist of taking lessons from pros who only feed but don't teach or someone that insists on you signing up for a series of lessons to get a coach to actually train you correctly. I am shocked but not too terribly surprised in some ways. I've seen a few of those pros you mentioned. However, my experience in three states is that MOST pros take a passionate approach to helping players improve. I would see what pros have attended teaching workshops and conferences. That shows they care about learning more themselves.

In your defense, we have a few pros here in this town who have never been to a tennis conference, have no books on tennis nor study tennis to any degree. But, again, they are the exception.

If you had taken lessons from me or any of the pros whom I personally know that are sincerely worth their fees, I think you would have a different perspective.

Trust me, not all pros are as you have described and have gained such distaste for!

 

[Raul_SJ]

Sometimes I see experienced certified USPTA coaches run the adult students around in private lessons. I hear them say they it is because they also want to instill fitness.

While I do understand that shots are often hit on the run and under pressure, I think it's better to first learn the stroke with a very easy feed so you can focus on the swing and not be worrying about getting in position and suffering from fatigue. Especially true for older students and others who may have limited mobility and various injuries.

But I sometimes see 3.5 players, in private lessons, trying to learn the forehand swing and the coach runs them from corner to corner with backhands and forehands, instead of focusing on the forehand swing the student wants to learn. Afterwards, I hear the students complain about being run around too much.

 

[LeeD]

Is there ONE way to run a coaching session?
Does everyone benefit from the same kind of coaching?
Heck, do we all learn the same way and in the same progression?

 

[user92626]

That, and they will lay down $200 on the new APD model, but won't spend $200 on lessons to learn to hit the ball correctly. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't do that and then complain about making the same mistakes over and over.

You forgot money for shoes, strings, gas, etc.

I'm curious, how much improvement on average would $200 buy you? 1 point increase in the rating?

I don't think anyone I know complain about the mistakes or flaws in techniques they make. They usually only focus on the good things they do, too much actually. Ergo, all the big egos and blaming on partners you see.

I always suspect that recreational tennis players are risk averse people. They don't wanna risk their money for uncertainty. If they take paid lessons they don't wanna risk looking stupid without improvement with their peers. People have some inkling that even with lessons improvement still means lots of work on their part. Do you see many middle aged men and women play with serious effort and determination?

 

[sureshs]

That, and they will lay down $200 on the new APD model, but won't spend $200 on lessons to learn to hit the ball correctly. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't do that and then complain about making the same mistakes over and over.

90% of the tennis industry spending in the US depends on players who play 10 times a year or more, as per TIA stats. Our very own TW depends on the guy who spends $200 on an APD.

The APD is not for getting better. It is to keep the spark alive in him. He knows that he could spend it on lessons, but he feels better with the new racket.

 

[sureshs]

I always suspect that recreational tennis players are risk averse people. They don't wanna risk their money for uncertainty. If they take paid lessons they don't wanna risk looking stupid without improvement with their peers. People have some inkling that even with lessons improvement still means lots of work on their part. Do you see many middle aged men and women play with serious effort and determination?

That is a brilliant observation and hits the nail right on the head. Adults get to the point where they know they are not going to put in the effort to get better, either as time or lessons. It is like older people faced with fixed income. They know it is too late to make a lot of money.

 

[GuyClinch]

Coaches have tried improving my serve. But they all have just said obvious useless thing "drop your racquet more". None have thoroughly gone through what is REALLY wrong with my serve. Useless money stealing.

I hear ya. But before you were talking about how how you didn't really need coaching to get good - and that strokes aren't important and it's all about footwork.

What your talking about now is not getting a lot out of coaching.. which is something that happens. But with good coaching you would get good results. A good coach could help your serve so much - but it is quite pricey. Tennis is rather like golf - country club sport..

 

[Big_Dangerous]

That, and they will lay down $200 on the new APD model, but won't spend $200 on lessons to learn to hit the ball correctly. Nothing wrong with that, but you can't do that and then complain about making the same mistakes over and over.

Well to be fair, the best teacher is one's own experience. So you don't exactly need a coach or an instructor to learn how to play, I mean I learned by watching it on TV/Youtube, etc, and then spending hours upon countless hours on the court. I never had an actual "lesson" in my life.

 

[user92626]

That is a brilliant observation and hits the nail right on the head.

Thanks. I'm full of brilliance

 

[GuyClinch]

Well to be fair, the best teacher is one's own experience. So you don't exactly need a coach or an instructor to learn how to play, I mean I learned by watching it on TV/Youtube, etc, and then spending hours upon countless hours on the court. I never had an actual "lesson" in my life.

This is not that insightful without you explaining your playing level/tournament records etc. Public courts are filled with 3.5s guys that are admittedly pretty decent that never got any training. How many players who have earned an ATP point have never had formal instruction? I lean towards zero..

Now in basketball or football - some guys do make the pros without training (rarely but it happens). Patriots have had a rugby player and a wrestler on their team for example.. But tennis? It's much closer to golf..

 

[ARKustom93]

Is there ONE way to run a coaching session?
Does everyone benefit from the same kind of coaching?
Heck, do we all learn the same way and in the same progression?

No, ..... but you already knew that.

 

[sureshs]

No, ..... but you already knew that.

It is called rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.[1] Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical devicemay be posed declaratively[citation needed] by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written. Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message.

 

[ARKustom93]

It is called rhetorical question.

A rhetorical question is a figure of speech in the form of a question that is asked in order to make a point rather than to elicit an answer.[1] Though classically stated as a proper question, such a rhetorical devicemay be posed declaratively[citation needed] by implying a question, and therefore may not always require a question mark when written. Though a rhetorical question does not require a direct answer, in many cases it may be intended to start a discussion or at least draw an acknowledgement that the listener understands the intended message.

Umm, ... didn't I just call it that?

 

[LakeSnake]

Umm, ... didn't I just call it that?

Do you want us to answer that?

 

[LakeSnake]

I hear ya. But before you were talking about how how you didn't really need coaching to get good - and that strokes aren't important and it's all about footwork.

What your talking about now is not getting a lot out of coaching.. which is something that happens. But with good coaching you would get good results. A good coach could help your serve so much - but it is quite pricey. Tennis is rather like golf - country club sport..

I have had two coaches and the results have been very different! My wife knew after she took one lesson with my old instructor that it wasn't going to work for her. She was right...

I was getting compliments on my game from multiple people I had been playing with, as well as other coaches that knew me, after a couple months with the new teacher.

 

[ARKustom93]

Do you want us to answer that?

Let's ask Sureshs ... But no, I'd rather hear some more of LeeD's profound insights ...

 

[Spin Doctor]

Most nobody of coaches I've seen is willing to change technique of an adult rec player. One coach said that he will not change my technique unless I take multiple sessions each week. Gimme a break! I'm NOT a future pro athlete so I'm not ought to be willing to waste that much money.
.

You complain that no instructor is willing to overhaul your technique. Then you find one that will, and complain that he wants you to take multiple lessons in order to do so?? That is actually a very sensible approach for this instructor to take. Do you really think proper technique is so easy to that you can learn it it one lesson per month? The reason juniors get so good is because they are receiving multiple hours of guidance and consistent instruction each day. And you think as an adult, with likely numerous bad habits, can circumvent this arduous process? It doesn't work that way. This instructor was at least being honest with you and telling you that a technique change takes time and money.

Whether that is a wise use of your money is another matter. I do believe that quality instruction from a pro is required for good technique, but from what I see of most adults taking lessons, 95% of them won't get there anyway. Most are too old, the rest are not athletic or coordinated enough. Of the few that have the raw ingredients, time and money may be limited. So in that respect, yes, lessons are a waste of money for a lot of adult learners.

 

[heninfan99]

Surely an independent adult & frugal learner can get most of the coaching they need from the assortment of vids by Rick Macci, Salzenstein, Coach Mauro and Feel Tennis. Then it's up to you to make it happen in your practice. For 2.5 to 4.0 all your coaching needs can be met for free.

Ball feeding, machine, hitting you must then setup yourself.

 

[sureshs]

Surely an independent adult & frugal learner can get most of the coaching they need from the assortment of vids by Rick Macci, Salzenstein, Coach Mauro and Feel Tennis. Then it's up to you to make it happen in your practice. For 2.5 to 4.0 all your coaching needs can be met for free.

But what about the ones who will not even watch the free stuff or get anything out of watching pro matches? Some of them have such terrible home-grown strokes that it is a pain to watch, and they soon show up with elbow braces and complaints about pain. Those are the ones that are really screwed.

 

[user92626]

But what about the ones who will not even watch the free stuff or get anything out of watching pro matches? Some of them have such terrible home-grown strokes that it is a pain to watch, and they soon show up with elbow braces and complaints about pain. Those are the ones that are really screwed.

It's very rare that you see those guys play hard. Certainly never hard enough to get pain. There are so many 50-ish men in my group whom I feel I could beat with my non dominant arm!

 

[heninfan99]

Actually many of those players end up as solid 3.5 doubles players. Adapting their games around their injuries and funky techniques. You see them in the park all the time.
Those are the guys, at a certain age, a coach won't change their strokes for they only take one lesson a year at a resort while on vacation.

These players really enjoy their tennis.

But what about the ones who will not even watch the free stuff or get anything out of watching pro matches? Some of them have such terrible home-grown strokes that it is a pain to watch, and they soon show up with elbow braces and complaints about pain. Those are the ones that are really screwed.

 

[sureshs]

It's very rare that you see those guys play hard. Certainly never hard enough to get pain.

Yeah but the problem is that they get pain for the wrong reasons (without playing hard). Those are the ones who could benefit from technique improvement.

 

[user92626]

Actually many of those players end up as solid 3.5 doubles players. Adapting their games around their injuries and funky techniques. You see them in the park all the time.
Those are the guys, at a certain age, a coach won't change their strokes for they only take one lesson a year at a resort while on vacation.

These players really enjoy their tennis.

I don't know if those guys enjoy tennis more than others. Here's something to ponder on. When you risk little you also gain/lose little.

The guys I know simply make it a routine to come out. Their days look exactly the same to me, which I don't envy.

 

[willeric]

Back to the OP, I agree. The topspin forehand is the shot most coaches focus on but it probably the last shot you should master. I wouldn't teach a eastern/semi-western/western forehand until the player has mastered all "continental grip" shots. You can play 4.5 level tennis (especially doubles) without a topspin forehand. I would teach a topspin backhand after all continental grip shots since most opponents will try to pick on the backhand.

I would also teach players to differentiate between offensive shots and defensive/neutralizing shots.

 

[julian]

Back to the OP, I agree. The topspin forehand is the shot most coaches focus on but it probably the last shot you should master. I wouldn't teach a eastern/semi-western/western forehand until the player has mastered all "continental grip" shots. You can play 4.5 level tennis (especially doubles) without a topspin forehand. I would teach a topspin backhand after all continental grip shots since most opponents will try to pick on the backhand.

I would also teach players to differentiate between offensive shots and defensive/neutralizing shots.

The percentage of coaches in U.S. who would agree with you about the continental grip is below one percent.

 

[indianballer]

Back to the OP, I agree. The topspin forehand is the shot most coaches focus on but it probably the last shot you should master. I wouldn't teach a eastern/semi-western/western forehand until the player has mastered all "continental grip" shots. You can play 4.5 level tennis (especially doubles) without a topspin forehand. I would teach a topspin backhand after all continental grip shots since most opponents will try to pick on the backhand.

I would also teach players to differentiate between offensive shots and defensive/neutralizing shots.

Is this how you coach? I'm a tennis coach and I would not do that.

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Back to the OP, I agree. The topspin forehand is the shot most coaches focus on but it probably the last shot you should master. I wouldn't teach a eastern/semi-western/western forehand until the player has mastered all "continental grip" shots. You can play 4.5 level tennis (especially doubles) without a topspin forehand. I would teach a topspin backhand after all continental grip shots since most opponents will try to pick on the backhand.

I would also teach players to differentiate between offensive shots and defensive/neutralizing shots.

Umm... what?

 

[julian]

Back to the OP, I agree. The topspin forehand is the shot most coaches focus on but it probably the last shot you should master. I wouldn't teach a eastern/semi-western/western forehand until the player has mastered all "continental grip" shots. You can play 4.5 level tennis (especially doubles) without a topspin forehand. I would teach a topspin backhand after all continental grip shots since most opponents will try to pick on the backhand.

I would also teach players to differentiate between offensive shots and defensive/neutralizing shots.

It is the example how backward this forum is.
To use a sensible argument instructions for the under 10 tennis do not promote the continental grip for forehand

 

[WildVolley]

Is this how you coach? I'm a tennis coach and I would not do that.

I coach, too, and agree with indianballer. Most good coaches will teach continental grip from the very start - for volleys, backhand slices, overheads, and serves. For forehands and backhands they'll teach making a grip change between forehands (I start most students with a SW grip or a grip between E & SW) and backhands.

This is how the modern game is mostly played and I see no reason not to teach the proper grips and have students start practicing grip changes from the very beginning. I see no reason to force a student to hit all shots with the continental until they've "mastered" the volley. By teaching students to learn with a sub-optimal grip you're most likely retarding their progress.

 

[coupergear]

@GuyClinch There's one big problem with observing pros' serves though: Things happen too fast for human eye. Another problem with myself: Whenever I watch pro tennis and the player is about to serve, I actually focus more on receiver. I remember back in the day of Agassi/Sampras when I was focusing so much on what Agassi did when he was returning serves. No surprises, straight from the get go when I first touched a tennis racquet around 2005, my return of serve has been one of my biggest strengths. I was clearly "a natural talent" on ROS. But the thing is, I don't believe in such things as natural talent. That early ability on ROS was clearly derived from focusing on Agassi in 90s.

Another pro stroke which I've been obsessed with is the runaround I/I or I/O FH. Yet again, no surprises, I do that a lot in matches and that is my strength. The point is, watching pros and myself has improved things I've been focused (obsessed ) on. Serve has never got any attention from me, and it shows .

Coaches have tried improving my serve. But they all have just said obvious useless thing "drop your racquet more". None have thoroughly gone through what is REALLY wrong with my serve. Useless money stealing.

Here's the problem, some people simply do not have what it takes to improve past a certain point. Call it lack of raw talent, coordination, athletic ability, etc --but no amount of coaching will improve this player. We all know these guys, in many sports, maybe can't really throw well, not good catching, don't seem to "get" what their body is supposed to be doing, not adept at mirroring technique and movement. There are diminishing returns leading to a ceiling for every player.

So what is a coach to do with a player bumping into theirs at a low level? "Sorry I can't accept your money, you won't improve." Also, it may be hard to identify a lost cause, some guys can look promising, but they're actually at their max. Furthermore, few players want to accept that they are at their ceiling, they will blame their lack of improvement on bad coaches, wrong approaches, etc. and end up endlessly tinkering and shopping around. This also leads to the happy coach syndrome, coaches who are endlessly encouraging about a student in spite of all evidence to the contrary, they want to believe that maybe eventually a light will turn on.

 

[willeric]

The percentage of coaches in U.S. who would agree with you about the continental grip is below one percent.

Continental Grip shots = volleys, serves, cut lobs, squash shot, defensive blocks, tweeners, etc.

I'm not advocating using a continental grip for forehands. What I'm saying is that you can play at a pretty high level including all through high school with the shots listed above and no "ATP" forehand. I've seen pro-doubles where players don't hit a "traditional forehand" and instead volley, chip and smash on the forehand side with a continental grip. An Eastern/Semi-Western/Western forehand is probably the most over taught shot. I see junior and adult lessons where the student has bad serve, bad volleys, no backhand and the teacher focuses on the forehand. I'll take a great serve, great volleys, great touch and a great backhand any day over having a great forehand.

 

[indianballer]

Continental Grip shots = volleys, serves, cut lobs, squash shot, defensive blocks, tweeners, etc.

I'm not advocating using a continental grip for forehands. What I'm saying is that you can play at a pretty high level including all through high school with the shots listed above and no "ATP" forehand. I've seen pro-doubles where players don't hit a "traditional forehand" and instead volley, chip and smash on the forehand side with a continental grip. An Eastern/Semi-Western/Western forehand is probably the most over taught shot. I see junior and adult lessons where the student has bad serve, bad volleys, no backhand and the teacher focuses on the forehand. I'll take a great serve, great volleys, great touch and a great backhand any day over having a great forehand.

Well considering most people are right handed. And favor their fhs. And mostly hit cross court. Your students will get most balls coming into their fh stroke. I think it makes sense to train that stroke properly. [emoji57]

You stated you would not teach a semi western fh till the student mastered all the conti strokes. By then it is too late.

 

[torpantennis]

Continental Grip shots = volleys, serves, cut lobs, squash shot, defensive blocks, tweeners, etc.

I'm not advocating using a continental grip for forehands. What I'm saying is that you can play at a pretty high level including all through high school with the shots listed above and no "ATP" forehand. I've seen pro-doubles where players don't hit a "traditional forehand" and instead volley, chip and smash on the forehand side with a continental grip. An Eastern/Semi-Western/Western forehand is probably the most over taught shot. I see junior and adult lessons where the student has bad serve, bad volleys, no backhand and the teacher focuses on the forehand. I'll take a great serve, great volleys, great touch and a great backhand any day over having a great forehand.

A good player, with a good forehand and good anticipation, will hit something like 70% or more shots with his forehand. On service games, the percentage of shots that are forehands can be even higher than that! Developing a game based on dominant forehand is simply faster and easier than developing a more complete game. And add to that the fact that when you runaround a backhand to hit a forehand from the backhand corner, you're in an advantageous position because it's relatively easy to place the ball anywhere on the court with that inside stroke.

 

[GuyClinch]

Here's the problem, some people simply do not have what it takes to improve past a certain point. Call it lack of raw talent, coordination, athletic ability, etc --but no amount of coaching will improve this player. We all know these guys, in many sports, maybe can't really throw well, not good catching, don't seem to "get" what their body is supposed to be doing, not adept at mirroring technique and movement. There are diminishing returns leading to a ceiling for every player.

Healthy average size people dont hit this point to 5.0. Most players are probably 3.0 so there is a ton of room for growth.

Btw average league player 3.5 but lots of people dont play league tournaments. Is it worth the 50k to get them to 5.0? Probably not but guys like torpantennis could go up 1 ntrp for way less.

 

[torpantennis]

Here's the problem, some people simply do not have what it takes to improve past a certain point. Call it lack of raw talent, coordination, athletic ability, etc --but no amount of coaching will improve this player. We all know these guys, in many sports, maybe can't really throw well, not good catching, don't seem to "get" what their body is supposed to be doing, not adept at mirroring technique and movement. There are diminishing returns leading to a ceiling for every player.

So what is a coach to do with a player bumping into theirs at a low level? "Sorry I can't accept your money, you won't improve." Also, it may be hard to identify a lost cause, some guys can look promising, but they're actually at their max. Furthermore, few players want to accept that they are at their ceiling, they will blame their lack of improvement on bad coaches, wrong approaches, etc. and end up endlessly tinkering and shopping around. This also leads to the happy coach syndrome, coaches who are endlessly encouraging about a student in spite of all evidence to the contrary, they want to believe that maybe eventually a light will turn on.

Sure, there is ceiling for all of us. But I'm not at that point yet. My game has improved by leaps in the recent weeks, almost every time I get back on the court I'm amazed by the quality I'm delivering. And all this happened the moment when I started:

1) Shadowswinging strokes in living room by watching reflection of myself in window during night.
2) Taking videos of my practice matches.
3) Observing my typical error patterns and improving them in the next match.

It's as simple as that. Observe and then work and focus. Unfortunately, no coach has ever tried to explain or mimic what I'm doing wrong. Explaining what goes wrong is MUCH better way to improve than explaining how things should be done. No coach, bar one young guy who I unfortunately took only one lesson from, have focused on things I do wrong. Hence, I'm a better coach for myself than any paid coach.

 

[julian]

Here's the problem, some people simply do not have what it takes to improve past a certain point. Call it lack of raw talent, coordination, athletic ability, etc --but no amount of coaching will improve this player. We all know these guys, in many sports, maybe can't really throw well, not good catching, don't seem to "get" what their body is supposed to be doing, not adept at mirroring technique and movement. There are diminishing returns leading to a ceiling for every player.

So what is a coach to do with a player bumping into theirs at a low level? "Sorry I can't accept your money, you won't improve." Also, it may be hard to identify a lost cause, some guys can look promising, but they're actually at their max. Furthermore, few players want to accept that they are at their ceiling, they will blame their lack of improvement on bad coaches, wrong approaches, etc. and end up endlessly tinkering and shopping around. This also leads to the happy coach syndrome, coaches who are endlessly encouraging about a student in spite of all evidence to the contrary, they want to believe that maybe eventually a light will turn on.

There are two scenarios in U.S. In membership based clubs.
There are coaches working for clubs and independent contractors renting courts.
The second group is smaller.
So if you have an uncoachable student in U.S. In the first case a coach has limited options. In the second case the coach decides whom to coach

 

[Attila_the_gorilla]

Sure, there is ceiling for all of us. But I'm not at that point yet. My game has improved by leaps in the recent weeks, almost every time I get back on the court I'm amazed by the quality I'm delivering. And all this happened the moment when I started:

1) Shadowswinging strokes in living room by watching reflection of myself in window during night.
2) Taking videos of my practice matches.
3) Observing my typical error patterns and improving them in the next match.

It's as simple as that. Observe and then work and focus. Unfortunately, no coach has ever tried to explain or mimic what I'm doing wrong. Explaining what goes wrong is MUCH better way to improve than explaining how things should be done. No coach, bar one young guy who I unfortunately took only one lesson from, have focused on things I do wrong. Hence, I'm a better coach for myself than any paid coach.

I agree Torpan. Personally I believe I would not be any better with a professional coach, bar exceptional ones. I am smarter than most of them, understand my body better than all of them, and have better mental flexibility to learn from experience. There's so much freely accessible info out there, you don't need to pay someone to tell you the exact same info. Because as you say, they are awful at understanding what you're doing wrong. They have their stock standard methods that they use to teach kids from scratch, but all they can do is repeat the same thing over and over again, cos they're hopeless at watching and listening. They just want to talk and keep repeating themselves, and get paid.
There are exceptions of course.

Same with every walk of life really. Most people are **** at what they do, just go through the motions but can't adapt to unique situations.

The main purpose of your average club coach is to keep kids occupied and out of trouble.

 

[shindemac]

My game has improved by leaps in the recent weeks, almost every time I get back on the court I'm amazed by the quality I'm delivering. And all this happened the moment when I started:

1) Shadowswinging strokes in living room by watching reflection of myself in window during night.
2) Taking videos of my practice matches.
3) Observing my typical error patterns and improving them in the next match.

It's as simple as that.

Very few can do this, so the exceptions should not be the rule. Think about why you didn't make this leap beforehand. How long did it take you before were floundering about being self-taught.

The reality is most people are at that stage. Floundering about, not knowing why they don't get better. Yes, you've made changes to the way you were practicing. In talent code, i mentioned 5 traits in that book, and one of them was the buzzing in a talented persons' head when they are practicing. You have that buzzing in your head now. Others don't. That's the difference.

I've seen it time and time again on this forum. Basic concepts keep getting butchered, and it's like a game of telephone and people start to make up stuff. For concreteness, "hitting up on the ball" becomes "hitting down"?! Wjat!? "Good ball toss" becomes not important or I'll just toss it wherever i want.

If someone has that buzzing in their head, then they can improve faster and maybe be self-taught. But most don't. I know after reading this, many will think they do, and think they're smart, etc. Then go out and keep doing the same things wrong. That's why it doesn't work. Like I said, it didn't happen for you until you had an epiphany and that buzzing moment in your head. Many will read this, and still not have a clue what I am saying.

Think about it. If everyone had an epiphany, then everyone could become world class pianists or guitarist or whatever. But they don't. Why do they keep making the same mistakes over and over?

 

[ARKustom93]

Is this how you coach? I'm a tennis coach and I would not do that.

Not to worry, ... it's all hypothetical(luckily)

 

[Moveforwardalways]

Continental Grip shots = volleys, serves, cut lobs, squash shot, defensive blocks, tweeners, etc.

I'm not advocating using a continental grip for forehands. What I'm saying is that you can play at a pretty high level including all through high school with the shots listed above and no "ATP" forehand. I've seen pro-doubles where players don't hit a "traditional forehand" and instead volley, chip and smash on the forehand side with a continental grip. An Eastern/Semi-Western/Western forehand is probably the most over taught shot. I see junior and adult lessons where the student has bad serve, bad volleys, no backhand and the teacher focuses on the forehand. I'll take a great serve, great volleys, great touch and a great backhand any day over having a great forehand.

Wait. So are you saying you train new players to be pushers/hacks first, and then when they get that down you start teaching real tennis? Wow.

 

[CoachingMastery]

Teaching continental grip stroke and shots first is the most productive way of teaching players an Advanced Foundation. Consider that the vast majority of pros use this grip for the following: Serve, Overhead, Forehand Volley, Backhand Volley, Backhand slice, Drop shot, two-handed backhand (for most, the dominant hand). If we consider that the forehand topspin ground stroke is really the only shot that has a distinctive grip other than continental, it is only logical to learn the continental grip first.

I'll go another step from experience, (35 years training hundreds of top-ranked players and thousands of highly skilled junior and adult players), it is far more difficult to teach the continental grip if the first grip learned is the eastern forehand / semi western.

In addition, it is difficult to teach the short volley stroke after a beginner has first learned to hit a full swinging topspin stroke with the associated grip.

As a teaching professional, the most telling sign a player is a 3.0 or 3.5 for life is by looking at their volley and their second serve. These are the two most revealing shots, usually because these players generally use their forehand grip, (usually eastern forehand) for their serve and forehand volley.

Thus, Willeric's comments above are not that far off. I would argue, however, that top players generally should possess a potent forehand as a general rule of thumb.

Final point: Learning the continental grip and associated shots mentioned in NO WAY prohibit a player from also learning an advanced foundation forehand within the context of an Advanced Foundation. I recommend the other shots be addressed early on with the forehand and backhand topspin strokes following in the progression for the reasons I stated.

 

[julian]

Teaching continental grip stroke and shots first is the most productive way of teaching players an Advanced Foundation. Consider that the vast majority of pros use this grip for the following: Serve, Overhead, Forehand Volley, Backhand Volley, Backhand slice, Drop shot, two-handed backhand (for most, the dominant hand). If we consider that the forehand topspin ground stroke is really the only shot that has a distinctive grip other than continental, it is only logical to learn the continental grip first.

I'll go another step from experience, (35 years training hundreds of top-ranked players and thousands of highly skilled junior and adult players), it is far more difficult to teach the continental grip if the first grip learned is the eastern forehand / semi western.

In addition, it is difficult to teach the short volley stroke after a beginner has first learned to hit a full swinging topspin stroke with the associated grip.

As a teaching professional, the most telling sign a player is a 3.0 or 3.5 for life is by looking at their volley and their second serve. These are the two most revealing shots, usually because these players generally use their forehand grip, (usually eastern forehand) for their serve and forehand volley.

Thus, Willeric's comments above are not that far off. I would argue, however, that top players generally should possess a potent forehand as a general rule of thumb.

Final point: Learning the continental grip and associated shots mentioned in NO WAY prohibit a player from also learning an advanced foundation forehand within the context of an Advanced Foundation. I recommend the other shots be addressed early on with the forehand and backhand topspin strokes following in the progression for the reasons I stated.

Majority of tennis directors in North East disagree very strongly with you.
The way it works is : forehand is taught first with a forehand /non-continental grip

 

[willeric]

Wait. So are you saying you train new players to be pushers/hacks first, and then when they get that down you start teaching real tennis? Wow.

Hitting technically correct "continental grip" shots like serves and volleys makes you a pusher/hack?

A good player, with a good forehand and good anticipation, will hit something like 70% or more shots with his forehand. On service games, the percentage of shots that are forehands can be even higher than that! Developing a game based on dominant forehand is simply faster and easier than developing a more complete game. And add to that the fact that when you runaround a backhand to hit a forehand from the backhand corner, you're in an advantageous position because it's relatively easy to place the ball anywhere on the court with that inside stroke.

Most players struggle because the balls they get in a real match are very different from the ones they are learning from in a lesson.

I'll still stand by my opinion that the "continental grip" shots (I include backhands since my right hand is still in a continental grip) are more important than the forehand that everyone spends so much time on. I love ripping forehands but I don't think it's the key to winning like I used to. Look at the US Open final, who had the better forehand? Who won?

 

[RetroSpin]

CoachingMastery, so you are saying when you get a beginner, you don't bother teaching FH until they have got a handle on the continental grip strokes?

I'm not a teaching pro, but it doesn't seem like all that much to tell someone they have to use a different grip for certain strokes. I mean, how hard is that to grasp?

 

[CoachingMastery]

CoachingMastery, so you are saying when you get a beginner, you don't bother teaching FH until they have got a handle on the continental grip strokes?

I'm not a teaching pro, but it doesn't seem like all that much to tell someone they have to use a different grip for certain strokes. I mean, how hard is that to grasp?

No, I said I introduce those continental strokes first. Usually within the second lesson, if we are talking about beginners, we usually start working within groundstroke parameters. So, in a way, yes, your right, that it isn't much to use different grips for different strokes.

However, I AM a teaching professional with over 35 years teaching well over 3000 players. (Including hundreds of top ranked, region, state, national and world-ranked players.) And, over my career, I found that teaching players short strokes AFTER full swinging ground strokes is much more difficult than teaching the volley first...then the serve and then the GS. Much easer to progress to full swinging strokes AFTER first learning volleys. Also, you can teach volleys correctly, (if you know what you are doing), within one or two lessons, because there are so many drills that allow more shot practice than other shots.

And, quite frankly, it ISN'T just changing grips. A grip change also changes contact point, position and stance, angle of the racquet, aim and many other variables...so, it is NO WONDER so many players who START with the wrong grip for shots, (usually the volley and the serve because they learned groundstrokes first!), have a heck of a time making ALL the associated changes that go with a grip change.

Not to mention the discomfort and unfamiliarity they will feel when they try to make the grip change!

 

[CoachingMastery]

Majority of tennis directors in North East disagree very strongly with you.
The way it works is : forehand is taught first with a forehand /non-continental grip

Well, I come from teaching in Southern California where it is a wee bit more competitive both in terms of numbers as well as quality of players. Just because they do something different in the NE doesn't mean it is right or better. Nor would I necessarily say it is wrong. But, I've got a little experience in teaching high performance progressions, (35-plus years), and will tell you that while it isn't impossible to do it the way they do it in the NE, I'm saying it is not as efficient overall, as I explained in my earlier post.

I speak at conventions around the country and I see that there are still a lot of places that teach things differently; many of those places don't produce but a handful of skilled players. In Southern California, we had thousands of top juniors competing, learning to play at very high levels.

I've explained why I indeed teach the continental grips first. A lot of pros that teach the forehand GS first are oftentimes unsure how to teach the other shots as the forehand GS is really the easiest to teach and easiest to learn for most beginners. The continental grip is usually much more foreign and pros need to KNOW how to go about teaching this grip and associated shots within an Advanced Foundation.

But, hey...if you want to go with what they are doing in the NE, go for it! I know what works best as I've been able to see first hand how the majority of players learn and have actually been able to compare our results with those who would teach what you have described by those who teach in the NE.

And, quite frankly, why couldn't a pro introduce the forehand at the second or third lesson? Would it make that big of difference in the bigger picture? Yet, if the player has ingrained the full swinging aspect of the forehand first, using a non-continental grip, I guarantee you that the volley and serve will be far more difficult to teach.

 

[RetroSpin]

This is what is so good about this forum. it never occurred to me to teach the short strokes first. (I don't "teach" but from time to time I do help beginners,e tc) I guess my assumption was that beginners need to learn how to get the ball over the net and keep it in play, then move on to things like volley and serve.

 

[CoachingMastery]

This is what is so good about this forum. it never occurred to me to teach the short strokes first. (I don't "teach" but from time to time I do help beginners,e tc) I guess my assumption was that beginners need to learn how to get the ball over the net and keep it in play, then move on to things like volley and serve.

Well, yes, you can obviously teach that progression. But, the problem with just 'getting a ball over the net and keep it in play' early on is that kids and adults too, will use what ever form they THINK will keep the ball in play. This is the fastest way to produce and encourage dinking. In my books, I call it "gravity reliant" play. That is they learn how high to hit the ball, how soft to hit it so it doesn't go out, and that's how you produce a dinker.

The other problem is as I mentioned: suddenly you NOW want them to "block" the ball? Kids who have been programmed to see a ball, then swing fully or there-about, will automatically do this when they see the ball coming to them in the air...even if you tell them to not swing or to block the ball. You have already conditioned them...on top of the fact, most all other sports they may have played, (golf, baseball, hockey, cricket, and even throwing a Frisbee), all use a full arm motion.

Plus, I always have had large groups in my programs, if I wasn't doing a private lesson. You can pair up two kids with one ball and one racquet and do what we call "toss and block" drills...where one kid tosses to a specific shot, (forehand/backhand volley, half volley and even when we move into groundstroke introductions you can use these drills!); we have each kid in ten minutes hitting well over 100 volleys in this setting. (each tossing 20 shots and catching, then switching places.) We even start with tossing bean bags and catching on the strings to learn how NOT to swing when we have to work with kids who were taught groundstrokes first!

Read my book, "Coaching Mastery" (purchased here at Tennis Warehouse), and learn the progressions I've used to develop one of the all-time most successful high school tennis teams as well as dozens of creative and very effective drills to maximize learning. (Read the reviews on the book, if you want to see what others have said about it!)

Yes, this is a good forum for discussions. I, unfortunately don't get over here too often! But always enjoy sharing when I can!

PS: I have dozens of comprehensive articles on all aspects of training and teaching what I call an "Advanced Foundation" at TennisOne.com where I am the Senior Editor. I've got a few DVD's out there too, and one of them is available here at TW: Building a World-Class Volley...if you are so inclined!

 

[julian]

Well, yes, you can obviously teach that progression. But, the problem with just 'getting a ball over the net and keep it in play' early on is that kids and adults too, will use what ever form they THINK will keep the ball in play. This is the fastest way to produce and encourage dinking. In my books, I call it "gravity reliant" play. That is they learn how high to hit the ball, how soft to hit it so it doesn't go out, and that's how you produce a dinker.

The other problem is as I mentioned: suddenly you NOW want them to "block" the ball? Kids who have been programmed to see a ball, then swing fully or there-about, will automatically do this when they see the ball coming to them in the air...even if you tell them to not swing or to block the ball. You have already conditioned them...on top of the fact, most all other sports they may have played, (golf, baseball, hockey, cricket, and even throwing a Frisbee), all use a full arm motion.

Plus, I always have had large groups in my programs, if I wasn't doing a private lesson. You can pair up two kids with one ball and one racquet and do what we call "toss and block" drills...where one kid tosses to a specific shot, (forehand/backhand volley, half volley and even when we move into groundstroke introductions you can use these drills!); we have each kid in ten minutes hitting well over 100 volleys in this setting. (each tossing 20 shots and catching, then switching places.) We even start with tossing bean bags and catching on the strings to learn how NOT to swing when we have to work with kids who were taught groundstrokes first!

Read my book, "Coaching Mastery" (purchased here at Tennis Warehouse), and learn the progressions I've used to develop one of the all-time most successful high school tennis teams as well as dozens of creative and very effective drills to maximize learning. (Read the reviews on the book, if you want to see what others have said about it!)

Yes, this is a good forum for discussions. I, unfortunately don't get over here too often! But always enjoy sharing when I can!

PS: I have dozens of comprehensive articles on all aspects of training and teaching what I call an "Advanced Foundation" at TennisOne.com where I am the Senior Editor. I've got a few DVD's out there too, and one of them is available here at TW: Building a World-Class Volley...if you are so inclined!

Please see paragraph number 3.
A bit shorter sentence would help a bit
Thank you
Julian
Www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

 

[CoachingMastery]

Please see paragraph number 3.
A bit shorter sentence would help a bit
Thank you
Julian
Www.julianmielniczuk.usptapro.com

There are many ways to pair up players and do what I call, "Toss and Block" drills.

Is that shorter?

Not sure what you are looking for on that paragraph. (The drills, I could write a book about...oh, wait. I did!)