tennis repetition

bababo

New User
How much repetition?

Would you like to know how much repetition you must execute before you learn a stroke? Would you like to know approximately how many hits it takes before you begin noticing some improvement? Read on!

About a year ago utilizing my Tennis Warrior System I began keeping mental notes of approximately how many repetitions it would take before a player began to feel a difference on a given stroke. It was amazing to watch many different players improve their stroke in a similar fashion when they reached a certain number of repetitions.

Of course this is not a scientific study and common sense dictates that no two players will develop in exactly the same fashion. But this will give you an excellent guide to help you understand what it REALLY takes to develop your tennis game and what to generally expect when you learn a stroke.

After all these years of teaching I have come to a conclusion that most players do not really get it. They have no idea how much repetition and practice a top pro has put themselves through. Even though most players will say they do understand, when it comes to learning the game they want to hear something technical so they can quickly correct their stroke and the magic begins! Repetition and practice are something they will get around to someday if they have the time.

Well, if you ever get around to practicing and executing repetition, here is what to expect. You will begin to notice subtle differences every 1000 balls you hit. That's right every 1000 balls! And you will begin to feel a pretty significant change every 5000 balls hit. When you pass the 6000 to 8000 range you will begin to believe you can develop this shot in a way you never dreamed possible. By the 10,000 to 15,000 range you will possess an good backhand, but now you can begin the refining of the stroke to iron out the difficult subtleties and continue to improve....more repetition! At this point your confidence will begin to soar.

With all this in mind, once again read what Nick Bollettieri said in a Question and Answer session when ask about Monica Seles.

QUESTION TO NICK: How can I hit like Monica Seles?

NICK'S ANSWER: Let me tell you how Seles learned to hit like Seles. At the academy she went out and hit ball, after ball, after ball. She would hit 500 to 1,000 balls all working on just one shot until she had it perfected. Not just good, but perfected. To hit like her, I would suggest you do the same.

Now I'm sure, after seeing Nick's responce, this all sounds mind boggling to you, but keep in mind if you play doubles one or two times a week you hit probably 10,000 to 20,000 balls a year. If you play more or play some singles you reach the 20,000 to 40,000 range a year. By the way pros do this in about a month or less! Unfortunately these numbers are for all different strokes, not just one particular stroke! And there in lies the problem. You play for a year but you have probably hit only 1,500 hundred of one stroke or another. If you are like most players you have been running around your backhand to hit forehands so you probably only hit 800 to 1000 backhands a year. And you wonder why your backhand suffers! Most players hit two to three times more forehands than backhands year after year after year.

I realize many of you do not have time to practice daily and hit that many balls to improve. If you just add some simple week to week ball machine practice or practice with a partner focusing on hitting just 100 balls for one stroke (that would take you about ten to fifteen minutes) you would add close to 5000 hits a year for that shot! Instead of hitting only 800 to 1000 backhands a year you could get close to 6000! What a difference that would make.

If you are patient and stay with the process here is an example of what changes you will begin to feel. Let's say you are working on a backhand. At the 1000 mark you will begin feeling some strength that you did not expect. At the 2000 to 4000 range you will begin judging the ball a little better and show signs of taking some small quick steps to adjust your body position. At this point you still believe the ball you are hitting has to be in a certain spot for you to make a good shot.

At the 5000 to 8000 range you begin developing better balance. Where you were clumsily falling off balance you will now feel a more controlled recovery. And you will feel like the high follow through is more automatic. At the 8000 to 10,000 mark you will begin realizing the ball does NOT have to be contacted in a perfect spot for you to make a good shot. Some times the ball may be to close to you, but all the repetition has developed some instincts you did not even know existed. You automatically adjust to the close ball and begin making shots you can not believe! Many balls are still flying out, but you are beginning to control the direction of the ball better than ever.

At the 10,000 to 15,000 range the percentage of shots landing in the court increases dramatically...and you are on your way! You're excited about your results and you possess a backhand the likes of which few club players have ever seen. You now understand the power of repetition and promptly send me a box of Hershey's almond chocolate bars (my weak spot :)

In conclusion, whether you are aspiring to become a pro or just a good club player you must put in the time to achieve your goals. Everyone must go through these different phases of repetition to improve their game. THERE IS NO OTHER WAY!

I received an email from an 8 year old tennis player named Corey who signed my guest book when he came to my website. Corey's mother is a professional classical violinist and she must have taught Corey some valuable lessons about repetition. I then learned he is beating 12 to16 year old kids! I wonder what Corey's secret is?

Well, you read his email from the comments section of my quest book and see if you can figure it out.

Comments: "I'm 8 and I want to be a tennis player. I practice 6 times a week and try to excercize (sic) every day. Whenever I have a minute I go in my garage to hit tennis balls. My mom worries I might do too much and get an injery (sic). She helped me organize my tennis thinking. She said some of the same stuff I read here. I like what you say. Thanks - Corey"

what do you think
 
Interesting reading (although I would dispute some of the numbers cited), I would be interested to hear your thoughts around acceleration of skill acquisition through distributed variable practice vs mass blocked practice?
 
Practice. Practice. Practice. That's what I say.

You are so right. Folks just don't get it. They are looking for that magic pill (give me tips, pointers, etc) that will instantly improve them. But it's all about practicing. One thing i've heard from different coaches, instructors is "The way you practice is the way you will perform." So practice perfect.

About the numbers cited. I've noticed much faster changes. I practice only one or two strokes, mainly my serve. There's no way I would hit that many balls least my shoulder falls off. But once you start to really work on a stroke, "magic happens". Balance is better, consistency, and power improve, etc. The first few weeks were hard since there were little gains, but then after that, the gains started to pile on each week pretty rapidly. I also only have one, maybeeee two thoughts in my head that I focus on. That's it, and it's been the same throughout the months.
 
YOu don't think many of us don't have thousands of repetition after 4 hours/a week playing that's been going on for 5, 10, 20 years??

Do think most 20 years experienced players are almost always better than 5, 10 years experienced players?

We're strictly talking about recreational players here.
 
Interesting reading (although I would dispute some of the numbers cited), I would be interested to hear your thoughts around acceleration of skill acquisition through distributed variable practice vs mass blocked practice?

I take a bit of a middle road on this issue.

In my experience, diminishing marginal returns are hit fairly quickly with repetitions of a stroke or situation. So I'd rather switch up drills often but come back to the original drill later in the lesson to force the student to confront the situation again and see if they can repeat the success.

However, if the student is making gains during a drill, I'm hesitant to stop while the gains are still being made.
 
YOu don't think many of us don't have thousands of repetition after 4 hours/a week playing that's been going on for 5, 10, 20 years??

Do think most 20 years experienced players are almost always better than 5, 10 years experienced players?

We're strictly talking about recreational players here.

problem with rec players is that many are practicing using the WRONG technique so after thousands of repetitions at 4 hours/week for 10 yrs, they've just ingrained hitting the ball the wrong way which is why they perform the same way on court all their lives.
 
Last edited:
Definitely a good post. When I learned how much info was on-line and how much I didn't know, technically speaking, about the serve I hit the courts hard. Starting a number of months ago I was hitting 1000 serves per day easy and also playing. Your numbers feel right to me.

Did you read OPEN? AA's dad's philosophy was that any boy who hits a 1 million balls will be unbeatable, or something like that.

How long have you been a coach. I've been so inspired lately I feel like doing some coaching myself!
 
Starting a number of months ago I was hitting 1000 serves per day easy and also playing. Your numbers feel right to me.

How long have you been a coach. I've been so inspired lately I feel like doing some coaching myself!

I hit about ~100 for every half hour i practice my serve. I deliberately slow down the tempo so i can focus on hitting it right. I only serve w 3 balls before i walk across the net and pick them up.

I'm still trying to get a sense of how much practice is needed and how to structure the practice sessions. Is it better to practice everyday even if it's just 15 minutes? Is there a point of diminishing returns if I practice one stroke for an hour? Etc.

I take lessons (not for tennis) and there are drills my instructor uses to correct technique issues. It works and I have literally saved months, maybe years speeding up my progress. Get a coach or at least a private tennis lesson. They'll spot things wrong that you weren't aware of. They'll give you pointers and drills to iron out those issues. If you're doing mindless ball bashing, you're not going to improve as fast.
 
There are many of us who have been playing for 20 yrs and have hit the same strokes about a million times but with bad technique. i.e. we make the same bad (technique) error now that we made 20 yrs ago.
 
My day job is the guitar, and I agree with the OP and, actually, most of the follow-ups. You just can't avoid the reps, unless you have some kind of freakish gift (and you wouldn't be reading this if you do, you would probably be out hustling someone or on the tour). One key is that you need to be _practicing_, not just playing. My dad has played golf for 45 years and cruised along the same plateau for most of that time. He would never go to the driving range, let alone practice his puts or chips. Insanity!!

If you are practicing it wrong, you will just be ingraining suboptimal movements, but will continue to improve up to a point. If you are only playing and not practicing, you should not expect to improve that much once a certain level is reached. If you think the tips you get from your pro, better players, or TT can replace the reps, you are mistaken--these are things that can guide you in how you take the reps.

I find those cited numbers inspiring. It gives me the sense that if I go out there, I can make major improvements in my skills just by setting up a program and executing it. Most of us are limited by our conception that we are not talented, or even _are_ talented, and underrate what deliberate, focused, patient, goal-oriented practice can do. "Repetition is the mother of skill"

Thanks, OP!
 
MT, how do you know those hundreds of balls hitting were not actually the main reason for improvement? Skill increases occurs inbetween practice sessions, not during them.
 
OP is right on, at least according to this very interesting article. It is a long read but has some very valuable information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The pro I've been taking lessons from requests that I do a LOT of drop feeds to grove in the correct technique. Apparently a lot of countries that are having successful pipeline of players build them up by focusing on perfect technique and repetition.

I have seen first hand how hitting thousands of balls enables one to completely change a stroke.

As they say - Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect.
 
These things are so vague, no measure on quality of practice.

Counting number of balls is a ridiculous way to track improvement.





Cheers for the read none the less OP :)

MT

This is exactly the things that I was implying in my previous post. Also, the cheers for the OP for his/her enthusiasm.


IMO, you either get it or you don't. I doubt Donald Young train-hits less balls than Murray or Murray less than Djokovic. Even Lendl said that the trainer has to put a stop to Murray's training session. But some guys aren't meant to be top 10 or a multi grand slam winner.
 
OP:

There is NO FIXED NUMBER. It's going to depend on your talent level, fitness level, mental image of the stroke, and feedback.

Tennis just doesn't work that way. This is why you see rec players who have played ALOT still at 3.5 level - and you see some young under 18 year olds playing at a near pro level..

It's clear you need a great amount of practice - no matter how talented you are. But it absolutely varies from person to person.
 
MT, how do you know those hundreds of balls hitting were not actually the main reason for improvement? Skill increases occurs inbetween practice sessions, not during them.

Skill increases after you get a good nights sleep. I believe MT is saying he's warming up for those 600 balls, then working on technique. When I am learning something new (again not necessarily tennis), I might only repeat an exercise for one minute or 3 repetitions before moving on to the next one, esp. if I do it correctly. If i make a mistake, i'll do it again or slow down the tempo so i can get it perfectly in my muscle memory. With a few good repetitions, i notice an improvement the next day.
 
Does it also mean that your skill decreases after a lousy night sleep?

I think that's what happening to me. This week I've been staying up thinking about how I bad I've been playing. :shock:

Maybe, but I wouldn't say it decreases. There's two things going on with a lack of sleep.
1. Unable to learn
2. Worse performance

1. Anything new you learn during the day, the memories won't be consolidated until you sleep. If I remember correctly, it doesn't happen until the deeper parts of REM sleep, so that's why having a good nights sleep is important. You could say that's where the magic happens.

2. If you sleep poorly, then your performance will suffer the next day. I've noticed I make way more mistakes than usual, but it goes back to normal once I get some sleep. Now if you are trying to train, then it becomes questionable since you're be making lots of mistakes.
 
Your brain doesn't know what is the correct form even if you know what it is. For example, if you're trying to learn a song on a piano and you constantly mess up and press the wrong key at a certain part, then you are actually learning that even though you know it's not correct. When you do enough repetitions, you know longer have to think about it so it becomes automatic. So a beginner might have to think about the footwork pattern for recovery, while a pro just does it wo thinking of each individual step. This is the reason why it's important to drill something until it becomes automatic, otherwise you will be playing wack-a-mole if you keep switching focus.
 
Your brain doesn't know what is the correct form even if you know what it is. For example, if you're trying to learn a song on a piano and you constantly mess up and press the wrong key at a certain part, then you are actually learning that even though you know it's not correct. When you do enough repetitions, you know longer have to think about it so it becomes automatic. So a beginner might have to think about the footwork pattern for recovery, while a pro just does it wo thinking of each individual step. This is the reason why it's important to drill something until it becomes automatic, otherwise you will be playing wack-a-mole if you keep switching focus.

Humans are complicated. It is possible to play something wrong on the piano hundreds of times, then "get it", and be more or less set up to play it right from then on. I think it is because it is not really just one skill we are learning, but dozens or even hundreds, and the different areas progress at different rates and maybe even from different causes. I believe that when MT hit "only" 50 shots to deal with a specific situation (more than most rec players normally practice at a single sitting), that he was effectively dealing with it, but I also feel that if he'd skipped the massed repetitions of his warmup, that his game would have suffered.
 
I don't care if skill acquisition theory suggested that I improved more from an information free 300 shots than I did from information and situation guided 50 ball.

Skill ac threory would suggest that you would develop greater skill from the shorter, game specific, constraint led training, than the the mass, open, blocked practice.
 
^^^ Neither did I until around 6 months ago - I was a mass repetition guy!

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for blocked, mass practice as part of an overall training regime, but distributed, variable, constraints led, deliberate practice appears to be the optimal model of skill acquisition for long term performance.

We are fortunate to have some of the worlds best skill ac' experts working in the UK and I have been fortunate to spend time with them - it has massively (and I cannot state that strongly enough) changed my approach to constructing practice sessions.
 
@MethodTennis - At first a lot of them found it unusual as parts of it were quite a departure from where I was previously (although I have always been far more facilitative than directive).

The constraints led model caused a few raised eyebrows for the players, especially when I set some unusual and non-traditional practices around the serve, for example. However, they have started to adapt to it and the level of improvement has been significant - they now take far more ownership over what they do and because they are constantly being asked to make decisions in training they can do so in matches.

With a directive approach, decisions are made for the players, so they never learn to make decisions in competition.

Switching to a more constraints led model has been great fun for me, as it presents more of a challenge when designing sessions - I have to really think my way around the problem to present an opportunity for the athletes to explore it, rather than simply presenting the "solution".
 
A-SC is still all about high volume, med/high intensity in general, but there the approach is more about conditioning the body - it's a physical form of skill. They still do conditioned, variable skill work within that framework - so within the context of a 100 ball drill they will limey have the student vary the flight or spin to different targets, so they have an element of variable training, but it sits inside the umbrella of mass practice.

IMG etc i'm not sure, met with Pete McRaw when he was head coach at IMG and their player development model was based around pattern repetition (so blocked, mass practice of specify sequences), but this might be different now.
 
The biggest problem I encounter with variable and random pratice is that players hate it. They'd rather see a short-term performance increase (in the course of a session) than long term learning taking place. As long as the old idea of hitting lots of the same shots as mass practice exists, you will need to work as a coach to get player buy-in of any different ideas.

I would also add the caveat that mass practice isnt all bad, especially in the early stages of learning as it helps development the generalised motor programme from which schemas (variable instructions to the particular shot) can be applied to.
 
Also, VP has been shown to be detremental to motor learning under certain cirumstances (e.g. initial stages) as it can slow the development of the GMP.
 
^^^ Neither did I until around 6 months ago - I was a mass repetition guy!

Don't get me wrong, there is a place for blocked, mass practice as part of an overall training regime, but distributed, variable, constraints led, deliberate practice appears to be the optimal model of skill acquisition for long term performance.

We are fortunate to have some of the worlds best skill ac' experts working in the UK and I have been fortunate to spend time with them - it has massively (and I cannot state that strongly enough) changed my approach to constructing practice sessions.

@MethodTennis - At first a lot of them found it unusual as parts of it were quite a departure from where I was previously (although I have always been far more facilitative than directive).

The constraints led model caused a few raised eyebrows for the players, especially when I set some unusual and non-traditional practices around the serve, for example. However, they have started to adapt to it and the level of improvement has been significant - they now take far more ownership over what they do and because they are constantly being asked to make decisions in training they can do so in matches.

With a directive approach, decisions are made for the players, so they never learn to make decisions in competition.

Switching to a more constraints led model has been great fun for me, as it presents more of a challenge when designing sessions - I have to really think my way around the problem to present an opportunity for the athletes to explore it, rather than simply presenting the "solution".

Sigh. I read two posts and I don't understand a dang thing. The reason I post this is that I almost always find Ash's posts interesting and worth following for learning. :)

So, Ash, could you explain in more words this "distributed, variable, constraints led, deliberate practice" approach? Thanks.
 
@MethodTennis - At first a lot of them found it unusual as parts of it were quite a departure from where I was previously (although I have always been far more facilitative than directive).

The constraints led model caused a few raised eyebrows for the players, especially when I set some unusual and non-traditional practices around the serve, for example. However, they have started to adapt to it and the level of improvement has been significant - they now take far more ownership over what they do and because they are constantly being asked to make decisions in training they can do so in matches.

With a directive approach, decisions are made for the players, so they never learn to make decisions in competition.

Switching to a more constraints led model has been great fun for me, as it presents more of a challenge when designing sessions - I have to really think my way around the problem to present an opportunity for the athletes to explore it, rather than simply presenting the "solution".

Ash. What specific constraint on serve practice? thanks.
 
The biggest problem I encounter with variable and random pratice is that players hate it. They'd rather see a short-term performance increase (in the course of a session) than long term learning taking place. As long as the old idea of hitting lots of the same shots as mass practice exists, you will need to work as a coach to get player buy-in of any different ideas.

I would also add the caveat that mass practice isnt all bad, especially in the early stages of learning as it helps development the generalised motor programme from which schemas (variable instructions to the particular shot) can be applied to.

You're right in that blocked, mass practice still has it's place, as does a directive coaching style and yes, it will largely depend on who you are working with - I work with elite level performers who train every day. If I was working with weekend warriors who took a lesson once a week then I would be more likely to err towards a mass practice approach, to get some improvement on the spot (so to speak)

Selling the learning is large part of the coaches job!
 
You must have a lot of confidence in the research and opinions of the experts. Most of the worlds top players have came out of some kind of academy operating under mass repetition of some sort. To come out and say its not the most effective way is bold and then to go and carry out your new thinking with elite para-athletes.

I have confidence in the people and in the evidence :)

I am an evidence led person and when I see practical examples that fit with my understanding from research that usually creates enough evidence to at least go a try an approach. If that personal experiment seems t bear fruit then I will stick with it and further try to refine it through experimentation and further research/consultation.

My mentor in this area Ric had the same issue when he started working with the Australian Archery team, they had a Korean coach who made them work in a blocked, mass practice model (400 arrows per session, 2 sessions per day, 1 target). The archers were relatively unsuccessful and bored! After a major champs the coach left to back to Korea and the Federation appointed a new head coach who brought in Ric as a consultant. Ric changed their training model to a variable, distributed practice - having the archers train sitting down, standing on bosu balls, playing "archery connect 4" and so forth. Training became more enjoyable and the athletes began to understand feel and timing in a way they never had before - they were better able to perform in competition as a result.

One example of many that led me to do further research into this area.
 
So, Ash, could you explain in more words this "distributed, variable, constraints led, deliberate practice" approach? Thanks.

Quick glossary...

Distributed - practice split over 2 or more sessions of shorter duration
Blocked - one session of longer duration
Variable practice - practice requiring multiple skills or variations of skills to be practice in a single session (example - hitting a slice serve, followed by a flat serve, followed by kicker, each to a differing target)
Mass practice - practice requiring a single skill be practiced for the duration of a session (example - hitting a flat serve to a ball can target repeatedly)
Constraints led - practice session where the coach/athletes set problems to be solved through changes in performance by introducing constraints (example - player wants to improve their footwork on ISO forehand - constraint could be to reduce the size of their court by a quarter and allow them only to hit forehands) Usually backed up by discussion after the drill to examine and evaluate the options the athlete came up with
Deliberate practice - Term made popular by Dan Coyle in "The Talent Code" - essentially a state of mind in practice where full focus is on the feeling of the skill being performed and changes/corrections are made internally on the fly.

Hope that helps :)
 
Ash, it is really cool to hear how you are doing it. Do you make a distinction between hard skills and soft skills as Daniel Coyle describes them in The Little Book of Talent/The Talent Code, etc? Hard being ones that are better practiced in massed, consistent fashion, soft ones being more improvisatory and practiced in play-like situations?
 
You're right in that blocked, mass practice still has it's place, as does a directive coaching style and yes, it will largely depend on who you are working with - I work with elite level performers who train every day. If I was working with weekend warriors who took a lesson once a week then I would be more likely to err towards a mass practice approach, to get some improvement on the spot (so to speak)

Selling the learning is large part of the coaches job!


Agreed

Unfortunately, my experience has been that even elite level coaches (not tennis) can be resistent to change away from the drill and then drill some more approach to skill acquisition. This then has a massive impact on how players perceive such ideas.

As an aside, I would term variable practice as the same skill set but with variation in the scaled elements of that task (practising a forehand whilst moving targets shorter/deeper or degrees of spin or force) and random practice as different but related skills practiced in a random order (slice serve followed by kick, slice, flat, flat etc).

These two types of practice may have different types of mechanisms at work.
 
Ash, it is really cool to hear how you are doing it. Do you make a distinction between hard skills and soft skills as Daniel Coyle describes them in The Little Book of Talent/The Talent Code, etc? Hard being ones that are better practiced in massed, consistent fashion, soft ones being more improvisatory and practiced in play-like situations?

Not especially - for me it depends more on the stage of the learner than the specific skill in question.

For example, whilst Coyle argues serving is a "hard skill" because it is repetition of one specific action, my belief is that whilst there could be a "perfect" action (in a biomechanics sense), the area of impact requires very precise feel and manipulation - a very soft skill (and my contention is that players often make serve errors, not because their actions are "wrong", but because they lack the feel required into and through impact) - so once the player has reached a stage where they have the basic action (in a biomechanics sense) down the focus must with to developing feel around contact.

That's my feeling on it anyway.
 
OP is right on, at least according to this very interesting article. It is a long read but has some very valuable information:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/04/sports/playmagazine/04play-talent.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0

The pro I've been taking lessons from requests that I do a LOT of drop feeds to grove in the correct technique. Apparently a lot of countries that are having successful pipeline of players build them up by focusing on perfect technique and repetition.

I have seen first hand how hitting thousands of balls enables one to completely change a stroke.

As they say - Practice makes permanent. Perfect practice makes perfect.

I found this article very interesting. Thanks for sharing! I am with you and the OP about repetition. The problem with most recreational players is they don't want to practice at all. Most 3.5-4.0 players in my area (socal) don't like rallying or practicing. They would rather play a match with the same inefficient strokes. Although playing matches helps develop other skills, it does not help stroke development.
 
Not especially - for me it depends more on the stage of the learner than the specific skill in question.

For example, whilst Coyle argues serving is a "hard skill" because it is repetition of one specific action, my belief is that whilst there could be a "perfect" action (in a biomechanics sense), the area of impact requires very precise feel and manipulation - a very soft skill (and my contention is that players often make serve errors, not because their actions are "wrong", but because they lack the feel required into and through impact) - so once the player has reached a stage where they have the basic action (in a biomechanics sense) down the focus must with to developing feel around contact.

That's my feeling on it anyway.
I think there is something to be said for this in Nadal's example. Case in point and to cut a long story short, Moya drastically reduced Nadal's training regimen which was brutal under Toni and focused on "quality over quantity" in his own words and it resurrected Nadal's career post 2016. My biggest beef with the training he had under Toni especially in 2011 was his patterns were extremely predictable vs Novak, so what was point of all the brutal practice he went through if it did not improve his game at least to the extent it did under moya with strategic practice/ improving aspects of his game. Consider what carlos is doing today with ferrero. He has actually reduced his practice in some areas and is focusing on other specific areas where he feels he needs improvement. Once again, quality over quantity.
 
Back
Top