Chris Lewit

[johnyandell]

Hey Eric,

Have you had any contact with Richard S. ? Tried and failed to get in touch a couple of times.

John

PS: GREAT discussion guys--I'm learning something.

[EricMatuszewski]

John,

All I know of him is through his publishings.


The two books I referenced are probably the most chock full of jr development wisdom that I've read.

I heard that Schonborn stepped down from his position as head of German Tennis Development a couple of years ago.

on a side note,

I had a conversation with Katherine Woerle WTA top 150 (Germany) two years ago about kick serves, she said in Germany, it's common place to learn and use it from childhood on.

She couldn't believe I was serious when I told her about the controversy.

Back to the books.

Eric

[EricMatuszewski]

Chris mentioned the games based approach.

The "games based" approach I believe has more to do with economic incentives for the clubs/teachers than making better players or "growing the game". I've heard "growing the game" used as a justification for every business move imaginable in tennis.


Has every one here watched tennis instructors play "Jail Break".

It's sad.


Rather than trying to promote the sport as something "easy and fun" like eating a cookie.

I'd personally rather see tennis promoted as a vehicle for learning important life lessons and developing character, like the Martial Arts (without the broken noses and bruised ribs).


The values of delayed gratification, commitment and perseverance which tennis is a perfect vehicle for teaching, can help a child succeed far beyond the tennis court.

In fact tennis instruction, could learn a lot from the history of the martial arts which developed over centuries.

In martial arts your not allowed to spar until you've demonstrated a fairly high level of mastery of all of the basic techniques and appropriate respect for the sport (although some americanized schools have debased martial arts as well).

This tradition in martial arts is analogous to what we're saying about competition and technique training, that the former must necessarily follow the later.

Can you imagine a martial arts teacher on the first day with 20 new white belts just saying, "ok, just start sparring and you'll figure it out".

This approach tends to encourage a very limited skill set. The learner finds one thing she's good at and just does it over and over to the expense of variety.

When the student encounters someone who knows the counter for a given move, then the student with the limited skills looses repeatedly until she realizes she needs to get another skill.

The problem is that it is a very slow way to learn. The student tends to rely on one kick punch or "shot" and doesn't bother with all of the other possibilities.

As the student gets older and it becomes harder to integrate new skills eventually the kids that got the full skill set rise to the top, like Federer.

Federer once mentioned that he lost a lot as a junior because he always wanted to experiment with new shots.

Essentially, this happens because it is easier to become proficient quickly with one skill rather than 5 skills.

Early competition encourages this one skill (forehand only) type of development.

After centuries of trial and error, the martial arts found out this is an ineffective way to develop skill.

As in the martial arts, kids need to learn a wide variety of techniques first and this is encouraged by limiting competition in the beginning of learning and focusing on technique.

The games based approach gets more kids on a court per hour but is an utter failure at producing players with skills.

[johnyandell]

Yeah I don't know the books but a lot of people I have respect for are always uttering his name. Always looking for ways to add new perspectives to the site--but those books are in German right?

[uspta146749877]

return of a kick serve

Eric,

Very interesting comments and a great article by Chris.

Instead of fighting directly ( which may or may not be easy to win) what about a campaign to get more clay or har tru courts?

As Chris pointed out in his article, playing on clay kind of encourages certain shots ( angles, kicks, etc) and might be a way to get kids to experiment on their own.

Maybe the revolution will be like skateboarding -- a ground up revolution as opposed to top down.

I might mention that I was in Chile once playing on real slow red clay. I was able to see young kids play and their games were already very stylish. Flowing one handed backhands with heavy spin , topspin forehands, spin serves, drop shots etc.

My sense is that learning how to play on clay might be the best way to teach kids. Didn't hurt Roger!!

Congratulations on your academic achievements!

A good subject would be:
Why a kick serve maybe difficult to return and when?

[EricMatuszewski]

John,

I have English editions.

There is a good chance that they are out of print.

"How to get 6 pack abs while eating cake" took up all of the sports/fitness publishing market. Had to stop wasting publishing on that boring science stuff with a market of 5 people. (sarcasm).

Back to working on those abs. . .

[airforce1]

What if we throw out the idea of this window of opportunity on learning or maybe better, read the data a different way,-- could we look at a better time frame for training an American athlete?

I'm far from sold on this window theory and actually see it as part of the problem of ending up with the wrong people ordained as our tennis future greats. It is sort of a distraction that throws us on the wrong trail. Yes, some kids do real well with stuff at that age and they are the ones whos development stalls shortly after. (which seems to agree with what you've shared on this subject)

My contention that it is the next wave of developers that we want to have as our main focus, but that they get overshadowed by that first wave of developers and we have no way of recognizing them. This second wave doesn't stall out in development as quick.

I am very familiar with this idea, as I and my own kids have been second wave developers. My awareness of this was key to my kids going on to do very well and play college tennis. They were the bodies to fill out the team in those 7-11 years, but went on the be the standouts in later years and moved right by those early performers. Most parents wouldn't have continued to stick with things, but being familiar, I reminded them regularly of my idea that the best Athletes come from the second wave.

I was lucky in that I continued to play just cause i loved sports so much, but with little expectation of my later development. At 15, when my speed and strength took off, I went on to be the captain of most of the school ball teams and all state....When I went on to play college ball at a top 5 Div I team, I found that many of the players on the team had experienced similar situations of blowing by those early performers!

In tennis where the system and coaching are so important and outside the school, we have to find away around this. I'm not saying give up on the first wave all together, as they have earned a chance to go wire to wire. I'm just saying not many of them will when we learn to harness the power of the second wave of developers. Then we will see what America has to offer tennis!

[EricMatuszewski]

Airforce, reffer to the Federer story already stated.

I think you may be reading something in to the posts that isn't there. I never said that our hopes should be pinned on junior champions. If you can find that quote in my post please prove me wrong.

In fact I went out of my way to renounce that mode of thinking, while calling attention to strongly supported evidence that motor learning is best done in the 8-12 age range.

ie: I related the story that Federer was not a standout junior, because rather than being overly concerned with being the greatest 12 yr old, he was learning a full skill set to be the best adult.

If I was supporting the 12's predict the future argument, I would have cited Martina Hingis whos development was a total outlier and should never be thought of as the norm.

[airforce1]

I think you may be reading something in to the posts that isn't there. I never said that our hopes should be pinned on junior champions. If you can find that quote in my post please prove me wrong.

In fact I went out of my way to renounce that mode of thinking, while calling attention to strongly supported evidence that motor learning is best done in the 8-12 age range.

ie: I related the story that Federer was not a standout junior, because rather than being overly concerned with being the greatest 12 yr old, he was learning a full skill set to be the best adult.

If I was supporting the 12's predict the future argument, I would have cited Martina Hingis whos development was a total outlier and should never be thought of as the norm.

Sorry Eric, if anything I wrote seemed like it was directed at you or your approach. I probably didn't state it very well as i was focused on the point i was trying to make. I love the stuff you write and the excellent points you always make. My comments were based on the idea of the thread as a whole, not directed at any one point or sentence.

I'm just disappointed in the direction of things in tennis with everything going younger and younger, and the way that is just accepted as correct. I just don't see the good in it for anyone involved.
I also make the mistake of making my case entirely based on males, where the time table is completely different than with the ladies. Seems everything is at least 4 yrs earlier with the ladies and even I have to admit that.

[EricMatuszewski]

Brian Devillers

Thanks for the apology, airforce. I think maybe you've gotten the threads mixed up with the one on whats wrong with junior tennis. Really, this thread is about the U.S.A kick serve policy for juniors, nothing more. I do appreciate your passion for junior tennis in this country though, I know we both care and want the best for our sport.


Does anyone know Brian Devillers? I was delighted to see a short interview with him on the Easter Bowl section. The reason I bring him up in this thread is because about 2 years ago I saw a short video clip he did on teaching 9 year olds to kick serve.

He used "baby nets" (that he'd made from pvc) as an extra barrier to get over and thus "prove" you could get the ball to drop quickly in the service box.

I'm pretty sure he was strongly advocating back arching and leg drive to the kids.

It's totally on topic that his interview is on this month.

Brian, If you're out there, chime in. I'd love to here your take on this whole discussion.

[airforce1]

Eric,
I'm sure I did, but the threads do overlap to some extent, as the discussion on the kick serve thread does advocate the very early adoption.

Print is such a tough medium to get the whole idea across without writing a book. That is one of the reasons that I appreciate yours, John Y's and others work here so much. All of you guys put out a great amount of very useful info in a concise manner.

I also greatly appreciate the way you and John never seem offended, in spite of how a post may come across. You seem to understand the challenges presented to us as we try to share an idea. Maybe that comes from facing that everyday as you write your groundbreaking pieces.