Million Dollar Question

[rosooki]

Would you rather have tennis coach A or tennis coach B?

A. Knows how to play tennis at a high level but never did much coaching.
B. Knows how to coach tennis at a high level but never played much tennis.

And yes, I'm making some implicit assumptions - that coaching has a complete skillset of its own and that playing tennis well doesn't mean you can coach. I believe the second assumption is particularly true of coaching beginners or kids.

[stotty]

Would you rather have tennis coach A or tennis coach B?

A. Knows how to play tennis at a high level but never did much coaching.
B. Knows how to coach tennis at a high level but never played much tennis.

And yes, I'm making some implicit assumptions - that coaching has a complete skillset of its own and that playing tennis well doesn't mean you can coach. I believe the second assumption is particularly true of coaching beginners or kids.

Neither. But a lot depends on what you call high level?

Being a good player is probably half way to being a good coach, but it is by no means a given that good players will have the teaching mentality or the skills to convey technical knowledge, or the skills to fix technical flaws. In fact, such skills invariably have to be learnt no matter how good a player one is, or was.

I don't see how anyone can coach tennis at a high level without having been a good player. Great salesman can do it, perhaps. A lack of playing skills has to be compensated for by an ability to convince people you know what you are talking about. A few can do it but not many.

It's difficult to coach above what is (or was) your own level of play. Most cannot (I can't) do it, and those that do are often doing their students a disservice - and holding them back! It's important never to assume knowledge you don't have as a coach or you are no better than a tennis parent. Even very good standard club tennis is a world apart from tour level stuff.

I feel strongly about this subject because here in the UK we have many substandard players coaching tennis who perhaps shouldn't be. The LTA at one time thought this was fine because they assumed these coaches would be confined to the grassroots, which most are - but the thinking now is that the best coaches should be working a the grassroots to ensure better development of promising players. So the grass root coaches need to get better all round over here in the UK.

[rosooki]

Licensedcoach,

What would you say is high level?
What would you say is substandard?
You say neither, but you seem to be leaning toward the "good player" side.
Why is it important to be a non-substandard player?
What is it that good players learn that non-good players can't ever know?
What is it that good players learned that is impossible to learn in any other way than through direct experience?
John Yandell has held that coaches learn from the leading players. If this is true, then the coaches are routinely, if not always, teaching what they, themselves, learned vicariously. Can nobody teach the Nadal forehand but Nadal? How many coaches are teaching what they learned directly through experience and only that? If so, what are we all doing on this website?

I'm not challenging, I'm honestly asking.

[stotty]

Licensedcoach,

What would you say is high level?
What would you say is substandard?
You say neither, but you seem to be leaning toward the "good player" side.
Why is it important to be a non-substandard player?
What is it that good players learn that non-good players can't ever know?
What is it that good players learned that is impossible to learn in any other way than through direct experience?
John Yandell has held that coaches learn from the leading players. If this is true, then the coaches are routinely, if not always, teaching what they, themselves, learned vicariously. Can nobody teach the Nadal forehand but Nadal? How many coaches are teaching what they learned directly through experience and only that? If so, what are we all doing on this website?

I'm not challenging, I'm honestly asking.

1. For me high level would be players who are approaching tour standard, or top nationally ranked juniors.

2 & 3 Substandard coaches are those who don't possess the basic fundamentals themselves. For example, a coach who uses a semi-western forehand grip for his backhand, or a coach who serves with a semi-western grip. If a coach cannot hold the racket correctly or execute the very basics in an orthodox way, then, for me, he/she is substandard. If you cannot demonstrate correctly, you shouldn't teach.

4. High standard players play to a level lesser players often struggle to understand - they may think they understand but, in reality, they seldom do. High level players employ sophisticated tactics, place the ball differently, and hit with spin and pace that lesser players have never experienced, etc. Yes, I guess lesser players could learn HOW high level players operate...but would a high level player want to listen to a much lesser player...in my experience almost never. A coach has to bring something to the table if he is going to win the respect of high level player. A good playing CV and a good IQ are the two most likely qualities that will earn such respect.

5. Players who have not played at a high level can never know what it is like to play against high level players. That's a big handicap and hard to overcome.

6. Not sure what you mean by your last point. It's been said "Players innovate, coaches follow" ....coaches are constantly looking at top players to see and keep up with how the game is evolving. I'm sure coaches can't learn everything vicariously, they have to have their own experiences too.

Andy Murray recruiting Lendl as his coach is interesting. Lendl has little experience (as far as I am aware) of coaching, but he has something Andy might just benefit from. Lendl was a winner, mentally very tough, and a professional through to his core...qualities yet to fully emerge in Murray. Murray is hoping to learn those qualities from Lendl, though it will come at a price...he likes to call the shots amongst those he employs...Murray likes servants. But he won't be able to mess Lendl around like he has his other coaches. He will have to respect Lendl or Lendl will walk...well would you want to mess with Lendl

This is a great thread, rossoki! It would be great to the thoughts of other coaches on the matter.

[don_budge]

Million Dollar Answer...

Would you rather have tennis coach A or tennis coach B?

A. Knows how to play tennis at a high level but never did much coaching.
B. Knows how to coach tennis at a high level but never played much tennis.

And yes, I'm making some implicit assumptions - that coaching has a complete skillset of its own and that playing tennis well doesn't mean you can coach. I believe the second assumption is particularly true of coaching beginners or kids.

My ideal coach...

C. Knows how to play golf and tennis at a high level and knows how to coach both at a high level.

Given your two choices...rosooki, I would say that both are somewhat lacking in the necessary prerequisites but I think that I would opt for coach B.

Generally speaking...the coach must be at a playing level where he can at least demonstrate effectively all of the shots. In order to coach at a high level one must be a well versed student of the game...which is quite another thing and probably more important than being a "great" player. To be a great coach one does not necessarily have to be a great player. A great player, however, will not automatically make a great coach.

Great players tend to be selfish and great coaches tend to be selfless in a sense. If a great player wishes to be a great coach perhaps it would be advisable to sojourn to the top of some remote mountain someplace, lose the self, and then come back reincarnated as a coach.

Two very nice threads btw.

[10splayer]

Would you rather have tennis coach A or tennis coach B?

A. Knows how to play tennis at a high level but never did much coaching.
B. Knows how to coach tennis at a high level but never played much tennis.

And yes, I'm making some implicit assumptions - that coaching has a complete skillset of its own and that playing tennis well doesn't mean you can coach. I believe the second assumption is particularly true of coaching beginners or kids.

B)By a mile. Some of the best teachers i've come in contact with, were not particularly good players. But, they could take one look at a player, and diagnose a root problem. That is an acquired skill. Besides, equipping a player with proper grips, fundamentals, requires very little playing skills on the part of the coach.

[lobndropshot]

A great coach is a player that competed at a level where they were in over their head and was able to find ways to win either through hard work and or brains. You want a coach that knows how to hit all the shots and knows when to use which tool for each job.
I think that coaching is a separate skill set that can be learned from coaches who can coach at a high level. How could a player get to a high level without high level coaching? I think it is possible, but is this a question of what came first the chicken or the egg.

[chuck62]

best coach

To me the best coach is someone who can help not just an up and coming junior but a club player as well and adjust the advice to fit the player. A fifty year old club player who only plays twice a week is better off imitating Don Budge rather han the top four. If he trys to swing like Nadal he will hit every ball over the fence. Although a a talented junior that plays every day could pull it off and is better off emulating the top guys. Give me a pro that can help both and understands the ideal technique and method for each player. Tennis isnt one size fits all and a coach needs to find the ideal tennis identity for the player. But to answer the question directly, I like someone who can demonstrate all the shots because if you can't do that the students won't believe in you and will not follow your advice.