Lesson learned from good coaching

[PittsburghDad]

This is probably tennis coaching 101 to high level coaches. But as a Dad who taught myself to teach my kid and then was around some less than stellar coaching, (including my own), and then had the opportunity to be around some highly skilled coaches, I noticed one massive difference. If it's useful to dads or mom's starting out, cool. I wish I would have known it.

Lower level coaches try to fix a whole bunch at once. God knows I did. Always tweaking and instructing. 5,6,7 more things a lesson. Maybe twenty in a month. All sorts of things.

The more I'm around good coaching I notice that they identify a weakness, and then attack that one thing from multiple angles, day after day. Week after week.

Example. Currently, shorten the forehand takeback. That's it. Move more weight forward into the one handed BH. That's it. Better upper body position on serve. That's it.

It's a striking difference from what I was doing. And from what I saw from other coaches. And the results have been stunning. The fixes seem to stick. It's a much more pleasant experience for the student and the ball striking is much better.

 

[mad dog1]

Another big difference between good coaches and bad coaches is good ones know the difference between key fundamental elements to a good stroke vs stylistic differences that will vary by individual player. If the stylistic element does not affect the fundamental components of the stroke, they don't try to change it. If it prevents the player from executing a core component, they change it. They won't try to create cookie cutter students.

 

[jm1980]

This is probably tennis coaching 101 to high level coaches. But as a Dad who taught myself to teach my kid and then was around some less than stellar coaching, (including my own), and then had the opportunity to be around some highly skilled coaches, I noticed one massive difference. If it's useful to dads or mom's starting out, cool. I wish I would have known it.

Lower level coaches try to fix a whole bunch at once. God knows I did. Always tweaking and instructing. 5,6,7 more things a lesson. Maybe twenty in a month. All sorts of things.

The more I'm around good coaching I notice that they identify a weakness, and then attack that one thing from multiple angles, day after day. Week after week.

Example. Currently, shorten the forehand takeback. That's it. Move more weight forward into the one handed BH. That's it. Better upper body position on serve. That's it.

It's a striking difference from what I was doing. And from what I saw from other coaches. And the results have been stunning. The fixes seem to stick. It's a much more pleasant experience for the student and the ball striking is much better.

You're teaching your daughter to hit with a 1HBH?!

 

[PittsburghDad]

You're teaching your daughter to hit with a 1HBH?!

I did. Its what she wanted. Somebody else does now. And its brilliant. I could watch that thing all day.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

This is probably tennis coaching 101 to high level coaches. But as a Dad who taught myself to teach my kid and then was around some less than stellar coaching, (including my own), and then had the opportunity to be around some highly skilled coaches, I noticed one massive difference. If it's useful to dads or mom's starting out, cool. I wish I would have known it.

Lower level coaches try to fix a whole bunch at once. God knows I did. Always tweaking and instructing. 5,6,7 more things a lesson. Maybe twenty in a month. All sorts of things.

The more I'm around good coaching I notice that they identify a weakness, and then attack that one thing from multiple angles, day after day. Week after week.

Example. Currently, shorten the forehand takeback. That's it. Move more weight forward into the one handed BH. That's it. Better upper body position on serve. That's it.

It's a striking difference from what I was doing. And from what I saw from other coaches. And the results have been stunning. The fixes seem to stick. It's a much more pleasant experience for the student and the ball striking is much better.

I've taught a bunch of sports: tennis, snowboarding, martial arts,... same principle applies to all. to make real progress, you need to attack things one at a time, get it ingrained as a habit (unconscious competence) before moving on to the next thing... otherwise you get a jenga affect... you tweak one thing, another thing is affected, you fix the other thing by going back to fix the first thign, so forth and so on...

Same thing applies when learning as well... i only focus on 1 or 2 things, max during a hitting session, sparring session, etc...

[edit] also, If a coach fixes the "one key issue" let's say it's the toss, a lot of other things naturally fall into place (i.e. your body makes the correct adaptations/adjustments without micro lessons on every detail)... ultimately I think the best coaches are really good at treating the problem rather than the symptoms.

 

[Deleted member 23235]

I did. Its what she wanted. Somebody else does now. And its brilliant. I could watch that thing all day.

+1, i read a book that talked about the pyschology of development...
a key part of getting good is matching your playing style to your temperament...
it has an affect on how you practice, how you perceive yourself, and ultimately focuses your playing style.
ie. if you're impatient, don't try to be a grinder
ie. if you're a grinder, don't try to always attack
ie. sampras switching to a one hander when he was "late" in his junior years
etc...

 

[RetroSpin]

to make real progress, you need to attack things one at a time, get it ingrained as a habit (unconscious competence) before moving on to the next thing... otherwise you get a jenga affect... you tweak one thing, another thing is affected, you fix the other thing by going back to fix the first thign, so forth and so on...

I agree with you but you have also highlighted a major problem. It is very common in golf instruction, perhaps less so in tennis.

People develop compensation mechanisms for technical flaws. Their technique is sub-optimal but they can at at least play. Correct the obvious problem and then the compensating mechanism ruins the shot. Very frustrating. The alternative of making multiple simultaneous corrections is difficult for all but the most athletically elite.

 

[Simon Paterson]

Thank God I am athletically elite

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

I agree with you but you have also highlighted a major problem. It is very common in golf instruction, perhaps less so in tennis.

People develop compensation mechanisms for technical flaws. Their technique is sub-optimal but they can at at least play. Correct the obvious problem and then the compensating mechanism ruins the shot.

Great observation. Like getting someone to simultaneously change from a frying pan grip to Continental and from facing the net to facing 90 degrees away while serving. Some things just have to be done all at once [you can't jump a chasm in 2 hops].

 

[PrestigeDave45]

Tell me there really aren't many coaches out there who do multiple fixes per lesson or per week for that matter? I don't honestly think there could be and my perception is there certainly aren't least not in this neck of the woods.

 

[PittsburghDad]

Oh there are a ton.

That's the majority.

 

[Simon Paterson]

Yes there are and I'm one of them. I've had students who are simply gifted at sport and are able to 'copy' 'imitate' strokes very quickly. In that case I am more than happy to work on multiple teaching points in just one hour. Feel free to launch your attacks

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

 

[fuzz nation]

Cool topic.

When I started teaching and coaching, I know I was prone to trying to dig into too many things in one session, but I still think I tend toward wanting to cover more than less. That's probably about wanting somebody to get some value out of the time they pay for when we get to work in a lesson setting. If I do some private lesson work with anyone, I definitely want to cover at least a couple of things on their to do list, especially if we're not going to be getting together on a regular basis.

I think the balance swings much more toward grinding through fewer issues for extra time though, when the coach and the player are getting together on a more regular basis. That's when ideas from different sessions can eventually link together more often. Technique can be honed over time and then eventually put to work in some live ball drills or point play with different opponents.

Since teaching and coaching can happen under lots of different conditions and settings, I think the delivery will always depend on the situation. The teacher/coach will also have an individual style, too. You've obviously seen that first hand. I'm sure that there will always be a tug of war between covering too much or too little from one session to another among the ranks. In my experience - limited for sure - it's never easy to get the balance exactly right.

 

[PittsburghDad]

Yes there are and I'm one of them. I've had students who are simply gifted at sport and are able to 'copy' 'imitate' strokes very quickly. In that case I am more than happy to work on multiple teaching points in just one hour. Feel free to launch your attacks

Sent from my SM-G930F using Tapatalk

No attacks. I think there are a couple things at play too. I haven't the depth of seeing a ton of kids and what works. I have only ever know my daughters training and game. And a couple years ago some people tried to give me some money to teach their kids because they had seen my daughter hit. After two lessons I gave them their money back because I realized it wasn't me at all, it was the kid. I didn't want to cheat anybody. So again, I can only judge on what works for her.

Also, for the first time shes in a situation that isnt "by the hour" if you will. Her coaches have time and a long term structure so there's no rush to fix things.

And her game is pretty advanced so there are fewer things to work on. THey can be more specific. Maybe thats a part of it. You can narrow down as a kid progresses.

She also learned to hit by imitating. Video in her case because I was a rugby guy, knew next to nothing about tennis. We just watched video and imitated.

What I have noticed though is that with higher level of coaching, they really do fixate on one issue at a time. And they will have drill after drill to attack the desired result until it gets there. Keeping it fresh and also looking at it from different angles. I have noticed a remarkable increase in the staying power of the "fixes." I knew my daughters FH backswing was too big for a while. I tried very hard to shorten it. They did in three weeks of fixating on it, what I couldn't do in two years. And the approach was very different. All the tools were focused on one aspect. One voice from the whole coaching team. One fix. They explained it verbally and with reasoning. They used video. They ran drills. They used point play to give examples. They used the how and just as much the why to explain it to her. It was really awesome to watch. And I was really struck how everything was focused on that one issue. And then slowly now, its become more of a weight transfer issue on the one handed backhand. But the game plan is the same. Here's the problem. Here's how we will get there. Here's WHY we are going there. Its a different level of coaching than I've seen. And it strikes me as markedly different than what I've seen before. Granted my experience is limited for the reasons I described.

 

[mcs1970]

I think the best coaches, in any sport, are ones who talk less and just watch and give subtle hints than focusing on every small thing. Let the athlete find their own inner voice to guide them because that's what they'll have to depend upon anyway in real game situations. How can they find that voice or their own individual style of play if the coach's voice is always in their ear? At the same time, are coaches to blame or parents? Are parents okay with coaches who have a laid back approach and let kids develop that way...helping the kids find what works best for them? Not in tennis, but in other sports, I've seen parents pull the kids away from a coach because they felt the coach was too laid back and not pushing their kids hard enough, even if what the coach was doing was probably something that would help their kid in the long run much more than a more demonstrative type of coach.

 

[Chas Tennis]

The strokes are a sequence of motions. Many of those motions might depend on the earlier motions. Are the earlier motions prioritized somehow in good coaching?

 

[tennis_balla]

It can look weird being on a court beside a coach who's overly enthusiastic, uses a lot of props (cones, ladders etc), over coaches and never shuts up. I noticed it a lot when I coach.

There is a club I teach at where one of the coaches even tried to assert his dominance when I came on the court next to him for the first time, showing me what kind of balls he uses so they don't get mixed up. I didn't understand his reasoning as his were balls I'd be donating to the local dog pound or doggie hotel. I just told him I got my own, new ones and all the same. That shut him up real quick.

 

[Crocodile]

The problem with the coaching industry is the variance in the level of qualification and experience that's going around. While there are national bodies that qualify coaches, there are also short cut private organisations that offer week end courses. Then you have people who just wake up one day and decide that they are now a tennis coach or they own a court in their backyard and it would be nice to earn some extra income.
If I was a parent looking for a tennis coach I would check that the coach is properly qualified by the right organisation and is up to date with professional development along with first aid, liability insurance and police checked which most national coaching bodies do as mandatory prerequisites for membership.
The other thing to look at is that certain coaches have expertise in certain levels of the game. For example a coach who works with top juniors or Pros may be totally out of their depth with beginner juniors or intermediate players and viva versa.
The other big thing to consider is that past playing achievements does not necessarily imply that someone is a great coach for your child. The ability to teach and communicate effectively needs to be looked at as well as current knowledge.

 

[PrestigeDave45]

Oh there are a ton.

That's the majority.

For real?
I been following your posts and find them very interesting though we would disagree on lots but thats the deal I guess.
In my city in the 70s we had a coach who essentially wasn't qualified in terms of badges etc but he was a good guy and he knew the basics.
Above all we had good respect for him and he for us. His fees were minimal(he worked as a teacher off court). Above all he showed us the importance of fight and coolness.
Borg was in his prime that time so I guess he was the template on which we were judged.
You know what most of all it was great fun. The same guy coached his son to win the nationals U18 and pursue a tennis career. Fun worked in those days.
I see nowadays far too much pressure on kids. They label squads "beginner", "intermediate". "advanced". "elite". Load of balls it is. The "elite" kids even get special track suits!!(that'll be 120 bucks sonny).
Good luck with it and hope you get what you want from this sport. I certainly did.

Back in with an edit. I guess its not so simplistic nowadays as coaches need vetting to work with kids etc. It would be nieve to think it should all be so simple. Unfortunately!

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The problem with the coaching industry is the variance in the level of qualification and experience that's going around. While there are national bodies that qualify coaches, there are also short cut private organisations that offer week end courses. Then you have people who just wake up one day and decide that they are now a tennis coach or they own a court in their backyard and it would be nice to earn some extra income.

This is an issue in every profession, even ones with "strict" certifications. Remember the joke

"What do you call a doctor that finished at the bottom of his class?"

"'Doctor'."

The other thing to look at is that certain coaches have expertise in certain levels of the game. For example a coach who works with top juniors or Pros may be totally out of their depth with beginner juniors or intermediate players and viva versa.

I think this is overlooked: people think that because a coach has had success at one level [usually a high one], they must be successful at all levels. Not so. Louis Cayer pointed this out in a seminar. [I'm paraphrasing] "I'm spoiled: I just tell them to do something and they do it. You [coaches in the audience] have to tailor your instruction."

I was watching a video on volleys. The guy had a relatively large backswing which would be completely inappropriate for many rec-level players; it would lead to a lot of errors. But I inferred that his audience was high-level juniors and they can handle such technique. But if you didn't know any better, you might just conclude that's how everyone, including 3.0s, for example, should volley.

The other big thing to consider is that past playing achievements does not necessarily imply that someone is a great coach for your child. The ability to teach and communicate effectively needs to be looked at as well as current knowledge.

Another great observation. People assume there is a 100% correlation between playing skill and teaching skill. I would argue that teaching and communication skills outweigh tennis skills up to a certain level of teaching. What good is a coach who is an excellent player who can't communicate to the student what to do? Useless. OTOH, someone of moderate skill who can demonstrate what to do and why and how will be much more valuable.

 

[Ash_Smith]

Good observation.

With beginners its different, especially beginner kids. Better off doing 15 reps of something with one teaching point then completely changing skill and hitting something else with one teaching point for 2-4 things then come back to the first one.

Well done young grasshopper

 

[bitcoinoperated]

Lower level coaches try to fix a whole bunch at once. God knows I did. Always tweaking and instructing. 5,6,7 more things a lesson. Maybe twenty in a month. All sorts of things.

The more I'm around good coaching I notice that they identify a weakness, and then attack that one thing from multiple angles, day after day. Week after week.

I was speaking to a good weightlifting coach who said the same thing, he said he can usually tell new or lesser coaches by the way they fire off loads of different issues all at once which he put down to kid-in-a-candy-store type thinking (being able to reign themselves in) or sheer ego rather than actually doing what is best for the athlete. Just as you say, his approach was to take the issue that would have the biggest benefit if improved and plug away at that. Once that was 'good enough' so that a different issue became the most impactful to work on they moved on to that rather than trying to it it perfect. Obviously there are limits; everyone will get pissed off focusing on one specific thing week after week.

The other thing he mentioned that was interesting was use of negative cues and observations "don't do x" "stop doing y" rather telling them things to do that would stop them doing x in the first place. After he said it I have noticed that a lot with lesser/newer coaches too.

 

[PittsburghDad]

I appreciate all the insights here. Its given me alot to think about and work through as I watch my daughter coached.

 

[meltphace 6]

I was speaking to a good weightlifting coach who said the same thing, he said he can usually tell new or lesser coaches by the way they fire off loads of different issues all at once which he put down to kid-in-a-candy-store type thinking (being able to reign themselves in) or sheer ego rather than actually doing what is best for the athlete. Just as you say, his approach was to take the issue that would have the biggest benefit if improved and plug away at that. Once that was 'good enough' so that a different issue became the most impactful to work on they moved on to that rather than trying to it it perfect. Obviously there are limits; everyone will get pissed off focusing on one specific thing week after week.

The other thing he mentioned that was interesting was use of negative cues and observations "don't do x" "stop doing y" rather telling them things to do that would stop them doing x in the first place. After he said it I have noticed that a lot with lesser/newer coaches too.

A tennis player I have the pleasure to work with recently asked me, "why is it we only work on one thing per session? So that I have to take more lessons?"

 

[PittsburghDad]

I was speaking to a good weightlifting coach who said the same thing, he said he can usually tell new or lesser coaches by the way they fire off loads of different issues all at once which he put down to kid-in-a-candy-store type thinking (being able to reign themselves in) or sheer ego rather than actually doing what is best for the athlete. Just as you say, his approach was to take the issue that would have the biggest benefit if improved and plug away at that. Once that was 'good enough' so that a different issue became the most impactful to work on they moved on to that rather than trying to it it perfect. Obviously there are limits; everyone will get pissed off focusing on one specific thing week after week.

The other thing he mentioned that was interesting was use of negative cues and observations "don't do x" "stop doing y" rather telling them things to do that would stop them doing x in the first place. After he said it I have noticed that a lot with lesser/newer coaches too.

There's a book called "Who's Your Caddy", by Rick Reilly. Entertaining read. He caddies for everyone from Trump to Deepak Chopra to PGA and LPGA players.

One of the stories in the book he is caddying for a PGA pro. Can't remember who but as I remember it, it was a popular player and a guy with a rep as a good guy. He was chatty, polite and understanding of his journalist caddie. At one point he is about to hit a putt and Reilly said to him just before he approached, "Don't leave it short." The glare he got back and the shudder from the other players was huge. The player spent the walk to the next hole going up one side of him and down the other. Don't ever speak in negatives was the upshot. It screws with people's heads.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

A tennis player I have the pleasure to work with recently asked me, "why is it we only work on one thing per session? So that I have to take more lessons?"

One could make the argument that working on one thing at a time will result in fewer lessons: if you try to learn multiple things at once, you likely won't be as successful ["jack of all trades; master of none"].

 

[PittsburghDad]

We are now a couple months into my daughter's new coaching situation and the style of one thing at a time that inspired the OP. She took a brief break, 4 days, for Christmas and went back out today. One thing is clear. The staying power of the corrections is far past anything else she's done with myself or other coaches. From ball one the things that they have worked on were clear. To me that's the biggest thing. Especially when actually changing something. They didn't do a single thing on her BH except focus on getting her weight moving forward. She had a habit of falling backwards on the shot. It was subtle but it was no bueno. Clearly, the one fix at a time works in her case.

And its wild how much of the other things that I've seen coaches try to correct on her BH just cleared up as soon as that big fix was put in play.

And I'm not trying to make it sound like they spent weeks just telling her to move her weight forward. It was clinical, it was attacked from multiple angles. But the focus was clear. And the communication was clear. Both to the player and to the parent.

 

[ijgill]

that is great. You both need time off. Yes, quit exposing your child to crappy play. It leads to a casual on court attitude that bleeds into tournaments etc... My son is the same way. He really needs a good private coach to break his worst areas. Group is just not effective with him (or with most kids imo). His biggest flaw was hitting way too many shots down the line and not enough cross court. His footwork was also not ideal. But his coach is working on one thing at a time. Like anything in life it is not hours or reps, it is quality, quality, quality!

 

[TCF]

deleted

 

[Captain Karma]

Another big difference between good coaches and bad coaches is good ones know the difference between key fundamental elements to a good stroke vs stylistic differences that will vary by individual player. If the stylistic element does not affect the fundamental components of the stroke, they don't try to change it. If it prevents the player from executing a core component, they change it. They won't try to create cookie cutter students.

Best thing I have read yet.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[stapletonj]

It's just like the old tennis shirt I'd see....

All kinds of stuff, "racket back early", "watch the ball", "lay your wrist back", etc., all over the shirt and then in big letters all across them "I CAN'T REMEMBER ALL THOSE THINGS AT ONCE"

 

[Nellie]

The problem I sometimes see with implementing single changes is that you cannot fix a big problem one bit at a time. For example, if you serve with a eastern forehand (waiters) grip, this cannot be fixed with just a grip change (you need to make big changes to your body/swing path). What I do like is, when introducing a big change, is to show all of the parts and to then work on one small detail at a time. In this example of a serve, I would probably start with a torso rotation (shoulders/back to the service box) and have the player figure out the swing path naturally. I do see a lot of players frustrated by a change because they will play much worse for a while and resist that change.

 

[SCSI]

The biggest barrier to progression in tennis aside from poor quality of coaching is the players themselves. They lack the fundamental understanding of what the game is really about and what the strokes are really about. In addition, they don't come prepared with open mind and ready to listen and learn.

Too often I see adult players come to take their lessons with very rigid body and mind and go right back to what they were doing before the lesson and they wonder why they keep making the same old mistakes. This is why it is so hard for an adult to improve quickly. Likewise, though kids are generally much better, often it is their parents who really have no idea about the game of tennis constantly injecting their ignorance and prejudiced views onto their kids including their decision making including selecting and evaluating coaches. Often they insist that the coach do the same thing that he/she does for another kid, etc., even though there are many key differences including the talent, level, gender, technique/grip, etc. That is why the more I understand tennis the more I have learned to appreciate the role of the plays' parents. Their being wise and making good decisions consistently is extremely important to their kids' tennis development.

So, if you have a coach that you trust, be like a child and really be open minded and listen 100%. We need to realize that, as much as we like to think that we know tennis, most of us know really enough to be dangerous and are often our worst enemies. It is like trying to play doctor with your common sense and after having watched medical TV shows.

I also agree with the above post regarding players and coaches focusing too much of individual style differences. I see this a lot on YouTube and the players that want to emulate the pros. There is nothing wrong with wanting to copy certain elements but understanding the fundamentals is the key and just focusing on the part that are not a critical part of the stroke will hurt you more than help you.

 

[SCSI]

One other thing that I would add is that it is also a bit challenging from coaches' perspective. I do not teach or coach but I fairly regularly help out as a hitting partner or just as a general helper. One thing that is challenging is that coaches don't typically have fixed commitment from the players. Players or their parents might have some vague idea about what they want to archive, but often they don't know and certainly very few would make the time and financial commitment to themselves and the coach. So, when you don't know how long you have your student precisely, it is tough to figure out how much instruction to fit in one session. I have seen a new student that end up keep coming back for 2-3 years or last only for 2-3 sessions.

In most cases, being a coach in tennis is not very rewarding or lucrative for a number of reasons and the coaches themselves have their own challenges. So, I think it is fair that we need to also consider this.

 

[S&V-not_dead_yet]

The problem I sometimes see with implementing single changes is that you cannot fix a big problem one bit at a time. For example, if you serve with a eastern forehand (waiters) grip, this cannot be fixed with just a grip change (you need to make big changes to your body/swing path). What I do like is, when introducing a big change, is to show all of the parts and to then work on one small detail at a time. In this example of a serve, I would probably start with a torso rotation (shoulders/back to the service box) and have the player figure out the swing path naturally. I do see a lot of players frustrated by a change because they will play much worse for a while and resist that change.

Most things can be taught in a progression but some things, like your serve example, are best taught as a package of changes, IMO.

"You can't cross a chasm in two hops."

 

[fuzz nation]

One other thing that I would add is that it is also a bit challenging from coaches' perspective. I do not teach or coach but I fairly regularly help out as a hitting partner or just as a general helper. One thing that is challenging is that coaches don't typically have fixed commitment from the players. Players or their parents might have some vague idea about what they want to archive, but often they don't know and certainly very few would make the time and financial commitment to themselves and the coach. So, when you don't know how long you have your student precisely, it is tough to figure out how much instruction to fit in one session. I have seen a new student that end up keep coming back for 2-3 years or last only for 2-3 sessions.

In most cases, being a coach in tennis is not very rewarding or lucrative for a number of reasons and the coaches themselves have their own challenges. So, I think it is fair that we need to also consider this.

Well said...

 

[dominikk1985]

I think it is not so much about the number of things you teach but how intense you teach it. Generally usually only one thing works better but sometimes there are two things working together.

What is really bad is not reinforcing the things but start working on one thing, stay with that 3 minutes and then teach the next thing no matter if that sticks or not. That is an individual thing. One person might need to do a little drill 10 times and it sticks and others need to do a movement conciously hundreds of times.

 

[Coolio]

With beginners its different, especially beginner kids. Better off doing 15 reps of something with one teaching point then completely changing skill and hitting something else with one teaching point for 2-4 things then come back to the first one. At least thats what a coach educator thats well regarded over here communicated to me.

Blocked practice of one thing works better when the players are more advanced.

Ok, so we have kind of blocked practice for 15 or so shots and then we vary the skill completely. This is good for beginners, although personally I do way more than 15 shots before I move on to another skill. This should only be until they have reasonable skills level to rally, then the should be loads of variation to allow for greater long term retention levels than blocked practice.

Why is blocked better for advanced players?

For advanced players I thought variable practice worked much better with lots of contextual interference instead of blocked practice, that improves a specific skill but does not guarantee the skill will transfer to a real life open game based situation.

 

[Ash_Smith]

In terms of skill development/acquisition relevant to competition performance then variable practice is "better" all around. Mass/blocked practices have their place of course - pre-competition phase training for example might be situation where I might go more towards blocked practice, to grease the groove so to speak.

 

[RetroSpin]

Question for coaches working with club level adult players. Why do most of you never say one word about footwork or split-stepping? I see lesson after lesson with the student standing flatfooted waiting for the ball to be fed to them like a pet bird. I would think it is the easiest single thing you could do to improve a student's results in competitive play.

Second, if you have a student who has incorrect technique that is limiting him but with which he is reasonably consistent, how do you determine whether to attempt a change or just let him continue with poor technique?

 

[Ash_Smith]

Second, if you have a student who has incorrect technique that is limiting him but with which he is reasonably consistent, how do you determine whether to attempt a change or just let him continue with poor technique?

It's only "incorrect technique" if it fails to achieve the desired tactical outcome - what is the desired outcome?

 

[meltphace 6]

Question for coaches working with club level adult players. Why do most of you never say one word about footwork or split-stepping? I see lesson after lesson with the student standing flatfooted waiting for the ball to be fed to them like a pet bird. I would think it is the easiest single thing you could do to improve a student's results in competitive play.

It's the most difficult thing. For instance a player I keep bothering with the split step told me that for him the problem is endurance (yeah, you can argue that he would save energy w/split stepping). Most players I have to do with totally get the concept (balance, rhythm, be able to react as quickly as possible, etc.) and tell me that it feels good - two weeks later and they're back to being passive and flatfooted. Another thing closely related to the split step is recovery: most players always try to get back to the center mark although they do understand that the center mark is only relevant for the serve. They totally lack of orientation and are clueless about court dimensions.
Just take a look at many of the videos being posted here: these are obviously motivated tennis players many of whom are not split stepping (and are aware of it).
The lack of splitstep symptom* (LOSS ) is probably issue #1 in discussions with fellow coaches.

 

[meltphace 6]

Second, if you have a student who has incorrect technique that is limiting him but with which he is reasonably consistent, how do you determine whether to attempt a change or just let him continue with poor technique?

Depends on many factors. Would have to draw a flowchart to illustrate my take on this.

 

[Coolio]

In terms of skill development/acquisition relevant to competition performance then variable practice is "better" all around. Mass/blocked practices have their place of course - pre-competition phase training for example might be situation where I might go more towards blocked practice, to grease the groove so to speak.

Why do they have their place? If the skills acquisition is better with variable practice then why do anything else...sure drilling a backhand crosscourt might give you a better sense of feel for the shot and might build confidence in the player (provided they don't know about the fact that they are training in a blocked way and they know variable is better haha) but there is no guarantee it would translate to a competition.

 

[Ash_Smith]

^^^ You answered your own question

 

[TimeToPlaySets]

Most people play 3 hours a week. That's 150 hours.
And no practice. They just do the same thing year in and year out.
Getting BETTER (vs. optimizing your current level ability)

It is VERY VERY hard to break old habits and relearn the game.
I think it takes $10,000 worth of coaching and feeding and drilling to become a different player

 

[RetroSpin]

It's only "incorrect technique" if it fails to achieve the desired tactical outcome - what is the desired outcome?

With respect, this is sophistry.

 

[Coolio]

^^^ You answered your own question

I see. Even if it may not necessarily translate to matchplay, it sure feels nice to drill a groundstroke over and over. Feels so clean by the end of a session. The confidence gained and the feeling you have by the end of the session, might make up for the fact that it is maybe not the most realistic practice.

 

[Ash_Smith]

With respect, this is sophistry.

Not at all. The reason we learn a particular technique is solely to achieve a particular outcome - in tennis terms a tactical outcome, and there are many ways this can be achieved (some more efficient than others) and many situations in which this can be effective. Therefore, as a coach, your job is to identify what the desired outcome is (which will depend on the current level of play and the ambition of the athlete) and work from that position. The only time I would classify a technique as "incorrect" is if it could cause an injury or the desired outcome is not what is required.

If you are talking about comparing to the "textbook" as being incorrect then that's a different issue - tennis is not a game of aesthetics.

 

[Ash_Smith]

I see. Even if it may not necessarily translate to matchplay, it sure feels nice to drill a groundstroke over and over. Feels so clean by the end of a session. The confidence gained and the feeling you have by the end of the session, might make up for the fact that it is maybe not the most realistic practice.

I would say that's fair, yes. The effect of confidence on performance is not to be overrated - I have a great Jess Ennis story around that from Toni Minichello at London 2012