Winning Pretty Part 3: Engineering Elegant Technique

[johnyandell]

Let's get your thoughts on Chris Lewit's article, "Winning Pretty Part 3: Engineering Elegant Technique"

[stotty]

Chris,

Great article as I knew it would be. A couple of questions:

Why are volleys underweighted in players' earlier development? Is it because volleys are secondary in today's modern game? I kind of get that and understand that volleys tend to take a backseat in today's tennis, but aren't we relegating volleys too much by starting their development later than perhaps we once did. In the old days (70's 80's & 90's) the theory was if you didn't teach aspiring juniors to volley and approach the net (excessively) when they were young then they would never develop a deep rooted confidence to do it later on in life in matches. I spent years having balls whistle by me until I finally learnt to read play and close down the net. Players that didn't learn this skill turned into baseliners and those (like me) that spent years learning net play became serve volleys and were always looking to get to the net. By underweighting volleys aren't we consigning 'highly skilled' net play to the waste bin and instead simple building a net game limited to mopping up easy balls that are above the height of the net? Just curious on your reasons and thoughts?

Another thing you seemed to suggest is guiding a player through a stroke by 'physically guiding' their racket or body. One of the things in the LTA coaching literature when I qualified as a Level 5 was that this seldom works and is ineffective. I used to use 'guided movements' with the player but stopped once I qualified. Where I used to find it easy to use was when coaching volley technique as it easy to get round young players and guide them through the simple volley movements. I remember thinking back then it was never as effective as I thought it should be, and reading the LTA coaching guidance sort of confirmed it, hence I stopped. Can you give some examples of how you employ guided movements and how successful you find them?

I loved the article and would really like your thoughts on the above.

I learned my volleys mainly against a wall and developed good hands and reflexes by doing so. It was my parent's garage wall...used to drive the neighbours round the bend.

[clewit]

Chris,

Great article as I knew it would be. A couple of questions:

Why are volleys underweighted in players' earlier development? Is it because volleys are secondary in today's modern game? I kind of get that and understand that volleys tend to take a backseat in today's tennis, but aren't we relegating volleys too much by starting their development later than perhaps we once did. In the old days (70's 80's & 90's) the theory was if you didn't teach aspiring juniors to volley and approach the net (excessively) when they were young then they would never develop a deep rooted confidence to do it later on in life in matches. I spent years having balls whistle by me until I finally learnt to read play and close down the net. Players that didn't learn this skill turned into baseliners and those (like me) that spent years learning net play became serve volleys and were always looking to get to the net. By underweighting volleys aren't we consigning 'highly skilled' net play to the waste bin and instead simple building a net game limited to mopping up easy balls that are above the height of the net? Just curious on your reasons and thoughts?

Another thing you seemed to suggest is guiding a player through a stroke by 'physically guiding' their racket or body. One of the things in the LTA coaching literature when I qualified as a Level 5 was that this seldom works and is ineffective. I used to use 'guided movements' with the player but stopped once I qualified. Where I used to find it easy to use was when coaching volley technique as it easy to get round young players and guide them through the simple volley movements. I remember thinking back then it was never as effective as I thought it should be, and reading the LTA coaching guidance sort of confirmed it, hence I stopped. Can you give some examples of how you employ guided movements and how successful you find them?

I loved the article and would really like your thoughts on the above.

I learned my volleys mainly against a wall and developed good hands and reflexes by doing so. It was my parent's garage wall...used to drive the neighbours round the bend.

Thanks for this and good thoughts. I respect coaches who want to teach the volley early for the exact reasons you mention. The Great Base initiative in the US lead by Steve Smith agrees with you almost verbatim. It’s a fair argument.

I agree with what you said about the volley being of secondary importance in today’s modern game. I know coaches will disagree on this issue. My main point is not to never teach the volley. I believe in developing an all-court game whenever possible. But I don’t believe we should teach the volley first or at the expense of movement and footwork. I see many, many kids in the US who are working on the volley with their coaches and cannot move well from the baseline. I fight against that. Movement and footwork and baseline play are priorities for me over the volleys. Build the baseline zone 3 first and then zone 2 and then zone 1, the net. I like that approach.

I understand all your points and respect coaches who want to preserve volley skills and confidence. I believe it’s partially a myth that you can’t learn to volley later in life. Many players develop good net games later on in their careers. Rafa is a good example of that.

I disagree with the typical lesson structure that is 30 percent forehand, 30 percent backhand, 30 percent come to the net and work volleys, and remaining time serve. I believe this lesson organization fails many kids. I believe the lessons initially should be overweighted on movement and forehands and backhands, and a lot of times for serving. Maybe even serve first in some lessons. I believe kids and adults would learn faster and reach a higher playing level this way. Then introduce the transition and net skills.

There is a caveat: some kids who are very creative love the net early on. When I sense this in a kid, I let them to their early on but never at the expense of the other foundational elements in the pyramid.

You make a great argument and that topic would make an excellent debate. Thanks for sharing. We can keep debating. It will be a good discussion.

[clewit]

Chris,

Great article as I knew it would be. A couple of questions:

Why are volleys underweighted in players' earlier development? Is it because volleys are secondary in today's modern game? I kind of get that and understand that volleys tend to take a backseat in today's tennis, but aren't we relegating volleys too much by starting their development later than perhaps we once did. In the old days (70's 80's & 90's) the theory was if you didn't teach aspiring juniors to volley and approach the net (excessively) when they were young then they would never develop a deep rooted confidence to do it later on in life in matches. I spent years having balls whistle by me until I finally learnt to read play and close down the net. Players that didn't learn this skill turned into baseliners and those (like me) that spent years learning net play became serve volleys and were always looking to get to the net. By underweighting volleys aren't we consigning 'highly skilled' net play to the waste bin and instead simple building a net game limited to mopping up easy balls that are above the height of the net? Just curious on your reasons and thoughts?

Another thing you seemed to suggest is guiding a player through a stroke by 'physically guiding' their racket or body. One of the things in the LTA coaching literature when I qualified as a Level 5 was that this seldom works and is ineffective. I used to use 'guided movements' with the player but stopped once I qualified. Where I used to find it easy to use was when coaching volley technique as it easy to get round young players and guide them through the simple volley movements. I remember thinking back then it was never as effective as I thought it should be, and reading the LTA coaching guidance sort of confirmed it, hence I stopped. Can you give some examples of how you employ guided movements and how successful you find them?

I loved the article and would really like your thoughts on the above.

I learned my volleys mainly against a wall and developed good hands and reflexes by doing so. It was my parent's garage wall...used to drive the neighbours round the bend.

Can you explain to me the rationale in the LTA guidebook why they eliminate physical manipulation? My guess is player welfare and liability. Too many coaches touch kids the wrong way. I believe kinesthetic teaching is crucial along with visual teaching. Those are the best ways to teach any technique to anyone in most every subject. I would have to check the research literature but I am not aware of studies that do not support kinesthetic learning and teaching. My gut is that this is more a child welfare issue from the LTA. Can you explain their view further?

I can share many ways to kinesthetically guide a kid without actually physically touching them with your hands or doing anything inappropriate. I often use a tennis ball or tube to guide them. It is an issue in coaching where groping kids can make kids feel uncomfortable and invade their privacy. I should share those tips in the paperback book!

[clewit]

Thanks for this and good thoughts. I respect coaches who want to teach the volley early for the exact reasons you mention. The Great Base initiative in the US lead by Steve Smith agrees with you almost verbatim. It’s a fair argument.

I agree with what you said about the volley being of secondary importance in today’s modern game. I know coaches will disagree on this issue. My main point is not to never teach the volley. I believe in developing an all-court game whenever possible. But I don’t believe we should teach the volley first or at the expense of movement and footwork. I see many, many kids in the US who are working on the volley with their coaches and cannot move well from the baseline. I fight against that. Movement and footwork and baseline play are priorities for me over the volleys. Build the baseline zone 3 first and then zone 2 and then zone 1, the net. I like that approach.

I understand all your points and respect coaches who want to preserve volley skills and confidence. I believe it’s partially a myth that you can’t learn to volley later in life. Many players develop good net games later on in their careers. Rafa is a good example of that.

I disagree with the typical lesson structure that is 30 percent forehand, 30 percent backhand, 30 percent come to the net and work volleys, and remaining time serve. I believe this lesson organization fails many kids. I believe the lessons initially should be overweighted on movement and forehands and backhands, and a lot of times for serving. Maybe even serve first in some lessons. I believe kids and adults would learn faster and reach a higher playing level this way. Then introduce the transition and net skills.

There is a caveat: some kids who are very creative love the net early on. When I sense this in a kid, I let them to their early on but never at the expense of the other foundational elements in the pyramid.

You make a great argument and that topic would make an excellent debate. Thanks for sharing. We can keep debating. It will be a good discussion.

I am happy to share how I adjust players in different techniques. I think that’s actually really important.

[johnyandell]

For what it's worth Pat Cash is on record saying volleys first for young kids. And in the original VandeMeer teaching system if I am not mistaken the volley was also first.

[stotty]

Can you explain to me the rationale in the LTA guidebook why they eliminate physical manipulation? My guess is player welfare and liability. Too many coaches touch kids the wrong way. I believe kinesthetic teaching is crucial along with visual teaching. Those are the best ways to teach any technique to anyone in most every subject. I would have to check the research literature but I am not aware of studies that do not support kinesthetic learning and teaching. My gut is that this is more a child welfare issue from the LTA. Can you explain their view further?

I can share many ways to kinesthetically guide a kid without actually physically touching them with your hands or doing anything inappropriate. I often use a tennis ball or tube to guide them. It is an issue in coaching where groping kids can make kids feel uncomfortable and invade their privacy. I should share those tips in the paperback book!

Here is the section I am talking about. It has nothing to do with welfare and liability. I copied and pasted it for you:

Information for kinaesthetic learning

Since some players learn technique by feel, it is important that you know how to convey information by this means. Unfortunately, many coaches interpret this to mean that they should offer physical guidance to the player, by holding their arm or the racket or by moving their body into specific positions. Such guidance is of very little value, simply because it does not create the same feel as independent movement. It will physically restrict the player and not create anything resembling what the technique should feel like. The player must perform the movement alone to develop the feel of the technique. It would be helpful to develop cue words for these players which they use as they practise.

This excerpt comes from an LTA document all Level 5 coaches are given during the Level 5 training. It's lengthy document called the Teaching of Skill. It's worth noting that the document goes back to 2018 and the LTA tutors may have changed their stance since.

As I said before, when teaching the volley, I used to physically guide (mostly young children) a player's arm and racket through the simple motion of striking a volley. It always seemed an obvious thing to do and that it should work. In hindsight, it never really brought about much success and yet I always continued with it because it felt like an obvious method that might work. The LTA maintain the most powerful tool a coach has is that of accurate, physical demonstration by the coach himself.

Governing bodies do their best but aren't always right so I wonder what the advice is with America's tennis governing body?

Let me know your thoughts.

[johnyandell]

I guess I disagree with the LTA on this one. I don't "guide" physically thru motions, but I ask the players to stop at key positions and then I often physically adjust to the correct key--that could be in modeling or when they actually hit. Both really... I've found this basic and tremendously successful. When they hit a key position correctly I ask them to close their eyes visualize the look and feel, and then do it again (and again). I don't really see the negative--the opposite. Of course players learn by feel. They have to feel the correct positions...

[stotty]

I guess I disagree with the LTA on this one. I don't "guide" physically thru motions, but I ask the players to stop at key positions and then I often physically adjust to the correct key--that could be in modeling or when they actually hit. Both really... I've found this basic and tremendously successful. When they hit a key position correctly I ask them to close their eyes visualize the look and feel, and then do it again (and again). I don't really see the negative--the opposite. Of course players learn by feel. They have to feel the correct positions...

Interesting. What you are doing is kind of a hybrid, by not physically guided but physically adjusting a the important check points.

The LTA aren't fools and what they publish will normally be based on evidence. At the moment I have no idea what that evidence might be but I may try to delve down and find out. Coaches aren't fools either and they know what works and what doesn't. I have found using ''physical guidance'' to be limited in terms of developing a player's stroke technique. They way you do it might be worth a try because pausing and readjusting at the checkpoints probably makes more sense anyway.

Thanks. This has been the best coaching conversation we've had on Tennisplayer in a while.

[johnyandell]

Agreed about the best. Based on my experience not sure I agree that the LTA aren't fools...

[clewit]

Interesting. What you are doing is kind of a hybrid, by not physically guided but physically adjusting a the important check points.

The LTA aren't fools and what they publish will normally be based on evidence. At the moment I have no idea what that evidence might be but I may try to delve down and find out. Coaches aren't fools either and they know what works and what doesn't. I have found using ''physical guidance'' to be limited in terms of developing a player's stroke technique. They way you do it might be worth a try because pausing and readjusting at the checkpoints probably makes more sense anyway.

Thanks. This has been the best coaching conversation we've had on Tennisplayer in a while.

Federations can make guidelines based on poor research or none at all. I wouldn’t trust a federation’s word on the subject necessarily. You can search the literature on haptic guidance and it’s an interesting subject. Here is an example.

https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24013789/

Basically LTA is saying haptic guidance is useless. My coaching experience in the field has been that haptic guidance is very helpful to students. Perhaps it’s the actual way I guide students: checkpoints and how I ask them to initiate activate the motor skill while I guide them. Many times I will guide them in the movement and then ask them to activate the muscles the way I guided them. That’s a key difference between just leading their arm a certain way.

I am shocked LTA would discourage kinesthetic guidance and still think one of the reasons is child welfare.

[clewit]

Chris,

Great article as I knew it would be. A couple of questions:

Why are volleys underweighted in players' earlier development? Is it because volleys are secondary in today's modern game? I kind of get that and understand that volleys tend to take a backseat in today's tennis, but aren't we relegating volleys too much by starting their development later than perhaps we once did. In the old days (70's 80's & 90's) the theory was if you didn't teach aspiring juniors to volley and approach the net (excessively) when they were young then they would never develop a deep rooted confidence to do it later on in life in matches. I spent years having balls whistle by me until I finally learnt to read play and close down the net. Players that didn't learn this skill turned into baseliners and those (like me) that spent years learning net play became serve volleys and were always looking to get to the net. By underweighting volleys aren't we consigning 'highly skilled' net play to the waste bin and instead simple building a net game limited to mopping up easy balls that are above the height of the net? Just curious on your reasons and thoughts?

Another thing you seemed to suggest is guiding a player through a stroke by 'physically guiding' their racket or body. One of the things in the LTA coaching literature when I qualified as a Level 5 was that this seldom works and is ineffective. I used to use 'guided movements' with the player but stopped once I qualified. Where I used to find it easy to use was when coaching volley technique as it easy to get round young players and guide them through the simple volley movements. I remember thinking back then it was never as effective as I thought it should be, and reading the LTA coaching guidance sort of confirmed it, hence I stopped. Can you give some examples of how you employ guided movements and how successful you find them?

I loved the article and would really like your thoughts on the above.

I learned my volleys mainly against a wall and developed good hands and reflexes by doing so. It was my parent's garage wall...used to drive the neighbours round the bend.

For example, take a players arm and trace the arc of the movement. Coach directed. Then ask the player to perform the traced arc with very soft haptic guidance. Then ask the player to perform the arc of the swing without the ball using shadowing and visualization. Perhaps combine with a visual demonstration. Then hand toss the player and see if they can perform the new motor action.

[stotty]

Chris

For example, take a players arm and trace the arc of the movement. Coach directed. Then ask the player to perform the traced arc with very soft haptic guidance. Then ask the player to perform the arc of the swing without the ball using shadowing and visualization. Perhaps combine with a visual demonstration. Then hand toss the player and see if they can perform the new motor action.

There seems to be two schools of thought on haptic guidance and the LTA seem to have taken the other side. I am keen to try how you and John go about haptic guidance and to see for myself what the results are. I coach extensively every day so have plenty of opportunity to try different methods and take an objective look.

The LTA are very good at teaching coaches how to build and run structured programmes within a club but shy away from teaching coaches how to coach technique. I can understand it in one sense because technique is a moving target and what was taught five years age gets modified constantly and no one wants to stick their neck and say 'this is how you should do it'. That said, they should teach coaches how to teach the fundamentals and in what order. Your article gives just that. Mark Kovacs has an 8 stage method of teaching the serve, which gives a coach (and the student) structure and a method of teaching. Things like this are really useful.

John's Your Strokes articles are a good fault finding exercise which also detail 'how to apply the fix'. It's one thing knowing the science, quite another applying it. I think this is very evident across world of tennis. Coaches often 'know' but can't effectively apply. In the women's game in particular there seems to be a lot of players overcoming technical deficits, to an extent, with sheer ability, but you can't help wondering how much better they would be with a better technical foundation. I would even put Serena in that bracket.

It's great chatting with you, Chris, and I am really looking forward to your next instalment here on Tennisplayer