jm1980
Talk Tennis Guru
But there's only so much practice time you can get in. Do you allocate the vast majority of that time to a strategy that generally works at that level, or do you forego some of that in favor of practicing something that's likely harder to master?Long term or short term, it's easier for me to make sense of teaching the whole game - including attacking the net - so that a kid is more capable from more areas of the court. Put two kids with about the same baseline strength and consistency in a match against each other and the one who can also attack with some competence will definitely have an edge over the other one who doesn't.
I just don't think I see the situation for the kids in the same light as you do. Sure, a decent baseliner will beat an opponent without good volleys and overheads, but that player has no business going to the net if he/she can't function up there. I just don't assume that all kids can't function at the net. I've seen several who do just fine. They were taught early on. Kids don't know what they need to learn to be decent players, but many coaches do and too often I think those coaches neglect the skills for attacking the net. That's just my take.
It can be hard to justify developing a net game when the kid could be working on improving from the back of the court, which in most cases is the winningest strategy they know.